Preamble

The House met at half-past Two-o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Advertisement

Mr. Blaker: asked the Postmaster-General why it was decided to place in Life Magazine, Atlantic Edition, of 4th September, 1967, a full page advertisement by the Post Office about the Marine, &c. Broadcasting (Offences) Act at a cost of £1,190.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): To ensure that those most likely to be affected by changes in the U.K. law on broadcasting transmissions were aware of the situation, advertisements were placed in specialist publications and local newspapers. These were selected on the advice of advertising agents.

Mr. Blaker: Assuming that there was any justification for putting advertisements out of this kind, which I do not accept, was it not rather odd to put this one in a foreign publication? In what area does the Atlantic edition of Life circulate?

Mr. Short: It circulates in Europe and has a circulation of about 250,000. It numbers among its readers the top businessmen in Europe. It was very important that they should be aware of the provisions of the Act. Justification for the advertisement is shown by the fact that we have not so far had to prosecute anyone under the Act.

Mr. Bryan: Is this not really a pathetic and infuriating way of squandering Post Office money, especially in a year when Post Office charges are going up? Britain is only one of the 20 countries in which this magazine cir-

culates. Who wants the Spaniards and the Yugoslays and the rest to know about the Act? Is it to be the practice of the Government to spend up to £20,000 on each Act as it goes through?

Mr. Short: That is a rather silly question. In any case, Post Office charges are not going up this year. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to put in the Library a list of the expenditure incurred by the Conservative Government in publicising their legislation, I would be glad to do so.

Sorting Office, Wood Green

Mrs. Butler: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects alternative parking arrangements to be available for vehicles using the Terrick Road sorting office in Wood Green.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): They become available this week and are in use.

Mrs. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that this will be a great relief to the people who live in this very narrow residential road, which is quite unsuitable for heavy traffic, who had reached the end of their tether? Now that these new arrangements have come into operation, will he look into the possibility of reorganising the sorting office so that the remaining vehicles use the front in Buckingham Road rather than the back in Terrick Road?

Mr. Slater: We are always trying to do what we can to improve administration of the sorting offices. My hon. Friend can rest assured that if we can do anything to assist in this case we will do it.

Transatlantic Communications

Mr. Marten: asked the Postmaster-General whether the Government intends to participate in the laying of further transatlantic telephone cables.

Mr. Edward Short: We will participate in further transatlantic cable projects when circumstances warrant it, but for the next few years we expect to meet all our growing needs in this area by means of satellite communications.

Mr. Marten: What further proposals have the Government for the use of commercial satellites for telecommunications?

Mr. Short: We hope to meet all our needs in the next few years by satellites. That at present in use over the Atlantic will be replaced by two, and we shall have to see where we go from there.

Expenditure (Scotland)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Postmaster General (1) what proportion of total General Post Office expenditure is currently spent in Scotland; how much this has increased in each of the last five years; and what steps he is taking to increase it;
(2) what is the total value of contracts placed by his Department in Scotland and in Fife, respectively; and what plans he has for channelling more such contracts into development areas.

Mr. Edward Short: The proportion has remained almost constant over the period at about 8 per cent. Of the total spent in 1966–67, some £5¾ million went on contracts placed in Scotland for Post Office stores. I regret that full information about the proportion of these orders placed in Fife is not available. In addition to stores suppliers, our major plant suppliers have seven factories in the Scottish Development Area, but we do not know what proportion of our orders for the supply and installation of plant was manufactured in them. Nationally, however, we estimate that over 40 per cent. of these orders—worth some £50 million a year at present—are carried out in development areas.
The transfer of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow and to a lesser extent, the Philatelic Bureau to Edinburgh will help to increase our share of expenditure in Scotland, and I am now considering what else we can do to help create wider employment opportunities in the Scottish and other development areas.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give considerable satisfaction to those of us who represent Scottish constituencies? Can he say what is the future of the A.E.I. factories in Fife, whether they will be run down or their employment prospects increased? When does he expect to receive a report from the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation on the future of the telecommunications industry and the

prospect of the Post Office itself manufacturing some of its own equipment?

Mr. Short: It is much too early to say anything about the A.E.I. factories, but this is naturally one of the things which we shall watch very carefully. I have already received the I.R.C. Report. The Bill which we hope to publish in January will, if Parliament agrees, give the Post Office Corporation power to manufacture.

Earl of Dalkeith: What will be the employment potential of the bureau in Edinburgh?

Mr. Short: I said that that would provide employment to a lesser extent. It will provide 80 jobs in Edinburgh, but the Post Office Savings Bank provides 5,000 jobs in Glasgow.

Mail Deliveries (North Lincolnshire)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will investigate the cause of a parcel posted in Grimsby on Monday 18th September at 10.15 a.m. not reaching Southampton until Saturday, 23rd September afternoon, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Louth; and if he will take steps to improve the service throughout North Lincolnshire;
(2) if he is aware that since the morning London mail train was diverted via Market Rasen from the East Lincolnshire line, postal delays have become unjustifiably long, as the evidence sent to him by the hon. Member for Louth shows; and if he will take immediate steps to speed mail deliveries to and from North Lincolnshire.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The train services introduced two years ago have not worsened the postal services in North Lincolnshire. The great bulk of fully paid letters for this area is delivered on the next day after posting. The delay to the parcel for Southampton was probably caused by the industrial trouble on the railways. I regret I have been unable to discover the cause of the delay to the postcard which the hon. Member forwarded.

Sir C. Osborne: If it is not the change in railway facilities which has caused


these additional delays, what on earth has caused them? My constituents in rural areas feel that they are being sacrificed for the money spent on people in the towns. Will the hon. Gentleman look at the rural position again?

Mr. Slater: Yes, I have no objection to having another look at the position in this area, but I think that everyone will agree that isolated cases of delay are not proof of a deteriorating service. Our information is that the service has improved, and we expect it to improve much more.

Mr. Kimball: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not allow the eloquence of my hon. Friend's request to lead him into making the changes suggested in Question No. 11, which might lead to a deter oration in the much improved service from which Market Rasen has benefited in the last six months.

Stamps (Cheque Purchases)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Postmaster-General why the general public were not informed of the Post Office's decision to accept cheques validated by bankers card for the purchase of stamps; what representations have been received concerning this lack of information; what action has been taken; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Short: Although there has been very little public complaint of lack of information, I am not satisfied that adequate publicity was given to this at the outset. A leaflet has now been issued, and I am sending a copy to the hon. Member. I am also considering whether further publicity would be useful. Perhaps I could make it clear that cheques for up to £30, supported by a banker's card, are accepted not only for the purchase of stamps but for any transaction.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information leading to this Question was drawn from the Post Office Annual Report? As it displays a rather frightening degree of commercial ineptitude, can he say whether any disciplinary action has been taken against the officials involved?

Mr. Short: Of course there has been no disciplinary action. It is a question of holding the balance—Question No. 1 complained of too much publicity.

Special Stamp Issues (British Inventions)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Postmaster-General why the names of Whittle and Baird were withdrawn from stamps showing British inventions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Short: The purpose of these stamps was to celebrate British achievements in which many people played a part. It was never my intention to commemorate individuals, however outstanding their contribution, and no question of withdrawing names from stamps arose.

Mr. Mills: Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up whether it was originally intended to have a stamp commemorating Whittle's and Baird's inventions, and if it was withdrawn—as the official reason given by the Post Office was—to avoid historical controversy, is not this an insult to British inventors?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a great deal of nothing. Someone at a Press conference said that the names had been withdrawn. When a new stamp is being designed the printers submit many essays for me to see, and they make a number of changes in them and put on them various denominations, various types of print and so on, and we choose from them. On one of the essays the names appeared, but although Baird perfected the mechanical system, someone else perfected the electronic system; Whittle was the leader of a team; Fleming discovered the anti-bacterial properties of penicillin, but someone else applied them to human disease. Therefore, teams are involved in these things.

Mr. Bryan: I understand that the distinguished committee which used to advise the Postmaster-General on the issue of new stamps has been dissolved. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the new arrangements for advice?

Mr. Short: I dissolved the committee on 31st March because, although a distinguished committee which had given many years of very good service, it consisted entirely of designers, people nominated by the Council of Industrial Design. I felt that members of the general public, artists and Members of Parliament should


be involved. I am now in the process of sending out letters to a number of ladies and gentlemen and hope that we shall assemble an equally distinguished committee to begin operating in the New Year.

Giro System

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Postmaster-General on what date the postal giro system is to be opened for public use.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Postmaster-General what is the intended date for the beginning of the National Giro.

Mr. Edward Short: I expect the service to open as planned in the autumn of 1968.

Mr. Campbell: Is the Postmaster-General still insisting on a minimum transfer payment of 5s. in view of the huge number of amounts of less than 5s. which are now transmitted by the clumsy postal order service—over 200 million a year according to a reply of the Postmaster-General recently?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman has raised this on previous occasions and I made it quite clear that we are not wedded forevermore to the 5s. minimum. This was decided after very careful market research. I hope in some years' time that the other remittance services, money orders and postal orders, will be superseded entirely by this. When that point arrives we shall have to consider the 5s. minimum.

Mr. Gilmour: Can the right hon. Gentleman be rather more categoric about the date? My information is that it is unlikely to be met.

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman's information is quite wrong. The giro will open as planned in the autumn of 1968.

Mr. Dunn: Can my right hon. Friend undertake a survey to discover the number of additional civil servants, in addition to the normal establishment, which will be required for this extension?

Mr. Short: I cannot offhand give the hon. Member the figures. It is a very considerable figure, but I will write to him.

Priority Mail

Mr. Murton: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied that adequate publicity has been given to his decision that fully paid letters at the 4d. rate now have priority in sorting and delivery over printed papers at the 3d. rate, which latter include birthday and other greetings cards, and that printed papers therefore are subject to delays; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Joseph Slater: We gave large users of the post advance notice of the changes and we displayed notices in Post Office windows. We also issued information to the general Press and to trade and industrial journals. Nevertheless, some of our customers overlook the risk that greetings cards posted at the 3d. rate will not arrive in time and the hon. Member will be glad to know that we intend to give additional publicity to this matter early in the New Year.

Mr. Murton: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and say how glad I am that further information is to be made available to the general public? Is he aware that there is a serious side to this? Does he realise that hospital appointments with consultants have been missed by up to three days' late delivery when a 3d. stamp has been put on the card?

Mr. Slater: I am not aware of this, and if the hon. Gentleman will let me have any particular case, I will have the matter investigated.

Gas Distribution Grid (Radio Control)

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Postmaster-General what discussions he has had with the Gas Council over the radio control of Great Britain's gas distribution grid.

Mr. Edward Short: My Department has been informed only recently of the Gas Council's requirements and, although discussions with it have already been opened, there is, of course, still a very great deal of detail to be examined.

Mr. Gilmour: Since the gas network evidently could be controlled through the telephone system, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it


would be utterly indefensible if, in addition to Stansted and other matters, the country must be further desecrated by the erection of hundreds of unnecessary masts?

Mr. Short: I quite agree. I am just as anxious to preserve the countryside as the hon. Gentleman. I would not authorise the radio link—and I have to give a licence for this—unless I was sure that it was the best way of doing it and that it could not be done satisfactorily by land line. However, 1,300 miles of high pressure gas pipe is something which must be controlled with the very greatest care. This must be gone into carefully, and we are still far from coming to a conclusion on it.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman recognise that where this line passes through flat country, like The Fens, these sort of towers which are to be erected will be particularly conspicuous? Will he, therefore, give an assurance that before the final siting of these towers is decided upon he will consult local planning authorities?

Mr. Short: If I give a licence, the siting of the towers for the gas network would not be a matter for me but for the Gas Council, and it would have to get planning permission.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Staff)

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Postmaster-General what is the establishment of his Department in Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and what is its staffing position.

Mr. Edward Short: The telephone manager's establishment numbers 2,471 posts: there are six vacancies. The head postmaster's establishment numbers 1,708 posts, with twenty-three vacancies.

Mr. Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied that he has sufficient fully-established staff in Newcastle? Will he seek to employ unemployed men for the Christmas postal rush?

Mr. Short: That is a matter which, I am afraid, we must leave to the head postmaster, but I have no doubt that he will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said and what I have said to him.

Standard Letter Boxes

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Postmaster-General if he is satisfied with the progress being made by the building industry in fitting standard letter-boxes at the correct height on new developments.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Although in some places progress has been good, I would welcome a greater effort by the building industry as a whole to comply with the British Standard specifications for letter boxes.

Mr. Brown: Would my hon. Friend agree that every hon. Member has at some time suffered from the rat-trap type of postbox which is in use? Is not this cruelty to Parliamentary candidates as well as to postmen? What is being done actively to encourage the use of standard letter boxes?

Mr. Slater: I support the greater part of what my hon. Friend says. We have drawn the attention of architects, builders, local authorities and householders through various forms of publicity to the need to fit proper letter boxes, and we have sought the co-operation of various representative bodies concerned with building standards and the supply of letter boxes. I sincerely hope that progress will be made as a result of the application which we have made.

Dr. Winstanley: While taking further steps in this important matter, would the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of taking steps regarding house numbers, which are of equal importance to his Department?

Mr. Slater: That is a reasonable observation which is very important to the people who are responsible for delivering the mail.

Northern Region (Contracts)

Mr. Wiley: asked the Postmaster-General what is the total value of contracts placed by his Department in the Northern Region this year; and how this compares with the corresponding figures for 1964, 1965, and 1966, respectively.

Mr. Edward Short: I am sorry that separate figures are not kept for the Northern Region of the country. Our


major plant suppliers have nine factories in the Northern Development Area. We do not know what proportion of our orders was manufactured in those factories. Nationally, however, we estimate that over 40 per cent. of these orders—worth some £50 million a year at present—are in the development areas.

Mr. Wiley: Is my right hon. Friend aware—I am sure that he is—that these factories are important to the North-East? Can he assure me that he is having discussions with the firms concerned to ensure that they give the fullest employment possible?

Mr. Short: My Department is currently discussing the question with the major plant suppliers. I must pay tribute to them. In the last two or three years, they have been extremely co-operative in setting up factories in development areas, and not least in the Northern Development Area. We are discussing the matter with them to see what further steps they can take.

Population and Staff Ratio

Mr. Eadie: asked the Postmaster-General what percentage, in ratio to population, is employed in his Department in Scotland, England and Wales.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The percentages are 1·6, 1·8 and 1·6, respectively, of the working population.

Mr. Eadie: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Has he plans for other work in Scotland?

Mr. Slater: The matter referred to by my right hon. Friend, the transfer of the Savings Bank to Glasgow, is well under way, and the staff is expected to exceed 5,000 by the mid-seventies. The great majority of them will be recruited locally. Reference has been made to the Philatelic Bureau, which has been moved from London to Edinburgh.

Mr. G. Campbell: Is the move of the Post Office Savings Bank to Scotland, which was decided by the Conservative Government and which will bring 5,000 new jobs to Scotland, proceeding according to plan?

Mr. Slater: Yes. Everything is going just as we expected.

Scottish Postal Services (Young Recruits)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Postmaster-General what was the intake of junior apprentices in the postal service in Scotland for the years 1966 and the nearest available date in 1967; and what is the anticipated intake in 1968.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I understand my hon. Friend is referring to recruits under 18 years of age. The figures are:
Postal and Telegraph Officers-30 in 1966 and 32 so far in 1967.
Postmen—128 and 70.
Typists—8 and 5.
Clerical staff—20 and 40.
The totals are 186 and 147. The intake in 1968 is expected to be much the same.

Mr. Eadie: I thank my hon. Friend for his Answer, but would not he agree that consideration should be given to carrying out the policy of reorganisation within the service, which would mean recruiting more young people to the postal service?

Mr. Slater: I agree. We are ready—and we have taken a stand on this—to recruit school leavers as and when suitable vacancies arise. Wherever we can do that, it will be done.

Women Sorters and Delivery Workers

Mr. John Page: asked the Postmaster-General, in view of the shortage of postmen in most areas resulting in a deteriorating delivery service, what new steps he is taking to recruit more women sorters and delivery workers.

Mr. Edward Short: The delivery service is not deteriorating. Serious shortages of postmen occur mainly in certain offices in the Midlands and the London area. In such places, we make continuous efforts to employ postwomen and part-timers whenever it is practicable to do so.

Mr. Page: The fact is that 50 per cent. fewer women than men are now employed in the delivery services. Will the Postmaster-General make much more effort to recruit women in the Harrow area and in other nearby areas, because


the delivery service is becoming a public scandal?

Mr. Short: There are a number of women employed in the Harrow area. This is a problem which has been with successive Governments. The only difference between the employment of men and women is that women are not on pensionable service. Many of them have been employed for many years. We are, however, trying all the time to make progress in this problem, but I think that the hon. Member understands the difficulty. The service in Harrow is not deteriorating. It is, in fact, improving.

Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the postal service in Harrow is certainly not scandalous, that the number of postmen employed is almost up to establishment and that all my constituents are very grateful indeed for the hard work done by the Post Office?

Offices

Mr. Russell Kerr: asked the Postmaster-General what criteria are applied by his Department in determining the suitability of an area for a post office rather than a sub-post office.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The main criterion is the provision of an adequate service by the most economic means. Because the overheads are normally shared by the private business, sub-post offices are generally more economical than Crown offices and it is not now our policy to provide Crown offices except in large shopping and commercial centres.

Mr. Kerr: Is my hon. Friend aware that the sub-post office facilities in Bed-font, in my constituency, which has a population of about 12,000, are wholly inadequate and, indeed, recently were wholly non-existent? Will his Department reconsider the recent decision to refuse a full Crown post office for Bed-font?

Mr. Slater: I know of the interest that my hon. Friend has had in this matter by the way he has pursued it over the last few weeks. I must, however, tell him that when the previous sub-postmaster gave notice, we had difficulty in finding a successor. To provide continuity of service, a new office had to be opened at short notice. I recognise that

the accommodation so hastily provided last month was not at first satisfactory, but it has now been improved and the sub-postmaster is planning to extend his premises. I sincerely hope that what has already taken place and what is to be done will improve the services in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Londonderry

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will ensure that by 1969 both the city and county of Londonderry will have full television reception coverage.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The coverage attained by their services is primarily a matter for the broadcasting authorities. B.B.C.1 and Independent Television arc already available generally in the city and county. The B.B.C. tells me that the main ultra high frequency station at Limavady should bring B.B.C.2, and colour television, to some 100,000 people by about mid-1969. A relay station, which should serve a further 50,000 people in the city of Londonderry, will follow shortly afterwards.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: While I do not wish to see any delay, is the hon. Gentleman aware that Londonderry, with its density of population, is only to get the low-powered relay station, and then at a later date? Cannot the hon. Gentleman see that the two areas receive coverage at the same time and not later than 1969?

Mr. Slater: The relay station will afford satisfactory reception for the city, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, and when the main station at Limavady is operating the B.B.C. will be able to decide what further relay stations will be required.

V.H.F. Areas

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Postmaster-General in which areas of the United Kingdom listeners wishing to receive all recognised broadcasting services are obliged to purchase very high frequency sets.

Mr. Edward Short: Of the four recognised services broadcast on medium and


long wave, Radio 3 has the lowest population coverage. V.H.F. sets are generally needed to receive Radio 3 in the following areas with the exception of areas of high population which are catered for by low-powered medium wave transmitters:
ENGLAND
North of a line from Blackpool, through Rochdale and Ripon, to Bridlington;
South-west of a line from Minehead to Swanage; the south-east coast from Deal to Seaford.
WALES
West of a line from Rhyl to Barry.
The whole Of SCOTLAND.
The whole of NORTHERN IRELAND.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the disappearance of the old Light programme wavelength means that many of my constituents in the Londonderry area believe that they cannot get reception except with V.H.F. sets? This also applies to the Third Programme. Will he see what can be done?

Mr. Short: I agree that in western Ulster the programme can only be received on V.H.F., but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the V.H.F. policy was started by the last Government. However, I quite agree with that policy. I believe that it is right and the only way to proceed. But we are looking at the problems of Ulster.

Mr. Bryan: In view of the importance of the figures in relation to the local radio experiment, has the right hon. Gentleman made a survey of approximately how many people possess V.H.F. sets? In Leicester, for example, where an experiment has started, has there been a great buying of sets?

Mr. Short: Manufacturers have made cheap sets available in shops where local radio stations are starting and already there are a large number of V.H.F. sets in use. They are as cheap as any other transistor sets now.

Radio 2 (Scotland)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will initiate a survey in Edinburgh to ascertain the implication of the recent changes in the British Broadcasting Corporation's long wavelength programmes, in as far as they affect pensioners and others with limited

means who are unable to afford very high frequency receiving equipment.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the steps which have recently been taken to improve reception of Radio 2 in Scotland.

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet taken action to improve the reception of the British Broadcasting Corporation's Radio 2 in Scotland.

Mr. Edward Short: As my hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) in answer to his Question on 9th November, the B.B.C. is carrying out tests to establish more precisely the extent of this problem. It tells me that it has not yet completed this study.—[Vol. 753, c. 144–5.]

Earl of Dalkeith: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a lot of regular feature programmes are the only bright spots in the lives of a great many elderly people with limited means, and that they are now most distressed to think that they may be denied these programmes in future unless they can get a V.H.F. set, which they are told to do by the B.B.C. and which they cannot afford?

Mr. Short: I looked at the position in Edinburgh, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and provided his constituents' sets are in good order they ought to be able to receive 1,500 metres transmissions satisfactorily. Almost all areas can receive it provided that they use a simple aerial which costs about 5s.

Mr. Taylor: How many complaints have been received by the B.B.C.? How many of these have been from Scotland, and if the survey shows that a lot of new hardship is being caused, will the B.B.C. consider changing wavelengths?

Mr. Short: I do not know how many complaints the B.B.C. has received. I have received a few, not a great many, but I realise that there is a problem here. These stations are broadcasting just as they were before, only at certain hours of the day they are broadcasting a different programme. The B.B.C. is carrying out a survey to see what can be done to help. I agree that people get attached to The Dales and so on and like to hear them.

Mr. Campbell: Is the Postmaster-General aware that there are special gaps in the reception in the North of Scotland and does he think it right that licence holders of many years' standing should have to buy a new set in order to hear familiar programmes because of the recent rearrangement?

Mr. Short: There is this problem in the North of Scotland, the Lake District, the Pennine Valleys and Wales, and many other paces, because of the topography of the country. I agree that it is a problem, but listeners cannot expect the programmes to remain the same forever.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Would my right hon. Friend agree that old people are always susceptible to exploitation for political purposes by any party, and that this has happened in Scotland? Would he give some assurance that, when the examination has been made and some steps have been taken to improve the service, he will advertise these steps?

Mr. Short: Most certainly. I think that there is a good deal in what my hon. Friend says. I repeat that almost everyone can get the long wave 1,500 metres provided they use a simple aerial. If they want advice on the kind of aerial and what it should consist of, the B.B.C. would be very happy to give it to them. The Droitwich long-wave station has doubled its power during daylight, and that helps a great deal.

Old People's Homes (Special Licences)

Mr. Marquand: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will introduce legislation to charge reduced fees for television licences for old-age pensioners.

Mr. Edward Short: As regards old-age pensioners generally, I have nothing to add to my reply of 1st June to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden).
However. I am glad to announce that, from 1st March next, I will be arranging for the issue of special licences to old people's homes to cover the use by residents in their bedrooms of portable radio and portable television sets. I will announce full details of the new arrangements shortly.—[Vol. 747, c. 245.]

Mr. Marquand: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will be very satisfied with his reply? Could he go a little further and look again at the question of old-age pensioners generally, in view of the significance of television to many of them?

Mr. Short: I have a great deal of sympathy in this matter, but we must draw the line somewhere. By great ingenuity on the part of my legal advisers, we have solved the problem of schools and of old people's homes. It was the Conservative Government which decided to enforce the full rigours of the law about old people's homes. We have solved that problem, and I think that we must draw the line at this point.

Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House certainly welcome his statement? However, would he agree that, instead of a reduction in the licence fee, old-age pensioners are likely to be asked in the coming months for a higher licence fee, and everybody knows that? Is it not time that the B.B.C. sought fresh revenue from advertising on Radio 1 instead of from the poor?

Mr. Short: That is an entirely different question.

Pirate Radios

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Postmaster-General how many pirate radios are still broadcasting to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Short: There are two pirate stations still broadcasting off our shores out of the ten that were operating at the beginning of the year. The question of taking action against those concerned with these two stations for possible breaches of the Marine etc. Broadcasting (Offences) Act is not a matter for me, but I understand that on this point the hon. Member has a Question down next week for answer by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General.

Mr. Mills: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would appear that Radio Caroline, in particular, is flourishing? Does not he recall that when the Act was going through Parliament earlier this year he assured the


House that it would be satisfactory to deal with the pirates? Would he now give an explanation?

Mr. Short: I am sure that the party of law and order delights in the fact that Radio Caroline appears to be flourishing, but the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the French Parliament recently ratified the European Agreement, the Irish Parliament is in process of doing so and we have no doubt that the Dutch Parliament will do so very shortly.

B.B.C. Licence Fee

Mr. Bryan: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on his proposals regarding the British Broadcasting Corporation licence fee.

Mr. Edward Short: I have nothing to add to the statement in the White Paper on Broadcasting; that is, that no increase in the fee will be required before 1968. I would, of course, give the House good notice of any increase.

Mr. Bryan: As the Postmaster-General did not see fit to answer my earlier question, may I ask whether it is not now obvious that the legislation passed by the Government is placing fresh financial commitments on the B.B.C. which are forcing the Corporation to put up its licence fee? Would it not be better to think once again about the possibility of using local commercial radio, which would pay rather than cost us money?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. The reason why the B.B.C.'s finances have got into a mess is that when the party opposite were in office they were asked by the B.B.C. for an increase in the price of the licence fee, but because they were afraid of losing the 1964 election the party opposite took no action.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 1968 is just about a month away? Can he be a little more exact about the date which he has mentioned?

Mr. Short: As Lord Hill has said, I have received a request for an increase in the licence fee. I have taken no decision on this yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Dover Marine Station

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Postmaster-General when he will take steps to modernise the telephone system at Dover Marine Station, in view of the impression created by it on foreign visitors.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I am sorry that the public call offices at Dover Marine cannot be converted to automatic working until the replacement of the existing manual exchange at Dover in 1970.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these boxes are the most antiquated in the country and that one cannot even get through to the exchange without putting in 4d., and that they give a lamentable impression to foreign visitors and others coming from the highly up-to-date Continental systems?

Mr. Slater: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's observations, but the equipment order for the new exchange is about to be placed. This is the earliest possible ordering in relation to the availability of the building.

Oral Answers to Questions — Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Bristol

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has to improve the telephone service between the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Bristol areas.

Mr. Edward Short: I am aware that the service between Newcastle and Bristol is not as good as it should be. This is because of a shortage of trunk lines between the two places. I expect to increase the number of lines by 33 per cent. in December, and to make a further increase in March 1968.

Mr. Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this news will be welcomed by both ends of this heavily engaged trunk line? Can we have an assurance that the improvements will be in operation at the times he has suggested?

Mr. Short: The 12 additional lines in December will make a great improvement, but the 13 in March will remove all the difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — Advance Rental Payments

Mr. Costain: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that insisting on rental payments in advance for telephone installations has the effect of rationing allocation by price; and what plans he has to alleviate this position.

Mr. Edward Short: Telephone rental is normally payable in advance, calls being paid in arrears. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend's answer to the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) on 9th November.—[Vol. 753, c. 146.]

Mr. Costain: Does the Postmaster-General realise that I put this Question down because of the number of letters I have received, and sent on to him, from old-age pensioners who are finding this rental in advance stopping them from having telephones, that which mean so much in their lives? Will he not look at this again?

Mr. Short: I have a great deal of sympathy for old-age pensioners, and the hon. Member knows that we have been carrying out an experiment in Manchester recently on this. I am also, at this moment, appointing a Fellow at Essex University to look into the ways in which the Post Office could assist in communications among old people. On the general question, this is a very expensive service, and if people want it I am afraid that it must be paid for. The rental in advance was started in July, 1966, in order to restrain demand, which it has done. I have announced recently two relaxations of this, and I shall relax it further as I am able.

Mr. Bryan: Has the Postmaster-General assimilated the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a massive deflation at once and an intensified deflation as the years go by? Is he aware that this means that this advanced payment will be with us for the life of the Labour Government? Since only 18 per cent. of old-age pensioners living alone have access to a telephone, would he not think again about the chance of waiving this requirement in their case?

Mr. Short: It is difficult to assimilate a fact which does not exist. The Chancellor has simply shifted resources from home consumption to export, and the hon. Gentleman knows that quite well. As to pensioners, the hon. Gentleman's party was in office for 13 years and did nothing about them. I at least am doing something.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Postmaster-General how many applicants are waiting for telephone installations in Sunderland; what is the average period of delay; and what improvement has been made in the past 12 months.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Ninety-five at 31st October, 1967, with an average waiting period of one month. The waiting list began in early 1967 and has been progressively reduced throughout the year. All those who are waiting should have service by January 1968.

Mr. Willey: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but does he realise that this is a matter of importance to Sunderland in its present difficulties? May I be assured that this progress will be continued?

Mr. Slater: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — Blyth

Mr. Milne: asked the Postmaster-General what is the number of applications awaiting the installation of telephones in the Blyth constituency; and how long is it expected to be before they are completed.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Twenty-six at 31st October, 1967. Twenty-two of these will be met after additional exchange equipment is installed in December. Provision of new cables, scheduled for completion in March and April 1968, will be needed to serve the remaining applications.

Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are perfectly satisfied, or almost perfectly satisfied, with the rate of progress being made, but that we are finding that firms and others attempting to make 'phone calls to the area are having increasing difficulties? Will he look into this matter?

Mr. Slater: We will look into it. If business people centred in these areas have complaints, we will consider them. If my hon. Friend has any particular case which he would like me to look into, I should be only too pleased to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — Seaton Sluice and Delaval Exchanges

Mr. Milne: asked the Postmaster-General when he estimates the merging of the Seaton Sluice and Seaton Delaval Telephone Exchanges will be completed, in view of the uncertainty arising from the changeover.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Early in 1970.

Oral Answers to Questions — Oil Company Employees (Deposits)

Dr. Gray: asked the Postmaster-General why employees of the local oil industry working in the North Sea are being asked by his Department for unusually large deposits before telephones are installed for their personal use.

Mr. Edward Short: Because of the size of the bad debts run up by some of the oil industry employees living temporarily in East Anglia.
This is not to say that most or even a large number of the oil industry employees there are bad payers. They are not. But they do involve a special risk; and, in the interests of all our customers, we have thought it advisable to ask for special deposits by way of insurance against that risk.

Dr. Gray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that employees of oil companies stationed in the Lowestoft area have been charged £100 deposit if they are American and £20 if they are British, in addition to the normal charges? Does he not agree that this is excessive?

Mr. Short: Perhaps when I tell my hon. Friend that nine of those gentlemen have gone off without paying bills amounting to more than £100 each, my hon. Friend will recognise that we have to take precautions.

Mr. Bryan: As a matter of interest, may the House know by what authority the Postmaster-General is able to differentiate in the size of deposit from one customer to another?

Mr. Short: We have the legal power to do this.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. Judd: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now take further naval or military action in support of existing policies designed to secure the removal of the illegal Smith régime in Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.

Mr. Judd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support for any policy designed to deal effectively with the Rhodesian crisis but that there is anxiety in the present economic situation lest the sanctions policy proves abortive? Will he, therefore, consider with the United Nations means for policing Rhodesia more effectively, perhaps by extending the blockade to Lourenco Marques?

The Prime Minister: The question of making the sanctions policy more effective is a matter which my right hon. Friend discussed on his visit to Africa with Commonwealth Heads of Government. Should any further United Nations action be required, of course it could be initiated there.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Prime Minister recognise the realities of the situation in which the United Kingdom has devalued her currency whereas a currency for which the United Kingdom is responsible—Rhodesia—has not?

Mr. Speaker: That goes beyond the Question on the Order Paper.

The Prime Minister: If I may reply, Mr. Speaker, of course the Rhodesian £ is not traded on the world markets, but only on black markets, and I understand that it is the view of responsible banking circles that its present value as so traded is between 8s. and 11s.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Our £ is not worth 14s.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Since it is now clear from the results of the visit of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to Salisbury that there is no hope of getting a negotiated settlement with Ian Smith which would be acceptable to this House or to the African people, is it not about time that we


revised our policy and stiffened it by using some kind of military force?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend told the House on his return. As he said, both sides would consider the position reached as a result of his talks. As, however, my hon. Friend will know, Her Majesty's Government take the view that this constitutional problem is not one which it would be right to seek to deal with by military action.

Sir C. Osborne: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why so many of his pacifist friends are always wanting to send other people to do the fighting for them?

The Prime Minister: It is not necessary for me to interpret the thoughts of every hon. Member, in any part of the House, on this matter, but hon. Members on this side—and, indeed, on the hon. Member's side of the House—feel strongly about the breach of the principles which have been followed by successive Governments.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the statement made on 14th November by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary.—[Vol. 754, c. 231.]

Mr. Hastings: Is not the need to end this miserable quarrel all the more urgent as a result of the events last weekend? Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us suspect that the differences between the British Government and the Rhodesian Government are much narrower than was suggested by the Secretary of State on his return? When are we going to be told precisely what the position is, so that we may judge?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, who may or may not have his own sources of information, can suspect what he likes. My right hon. Friend told the House that as the result of these talks, despite them and Lord Alport's visit, the substantive situation—I am not talking of a return to legality—was that there was a worsening compared with the time when we met in H.M.S. "Tiger",

and no fewer than three principles were involved, and that in distance we had grown further apart of those three.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the Prime Minister aware that we on these benches behind him value the work which was done by the Commonwealth Secretary in mending fences with the African leaders during his visit, but would he please cease sending plenipotentiaries to Central Africa, because we believe that it is quite impossible to negotiate with Mr. Smith and that he has no intention whatever of doing any deal with us? Would my right hon. Friend intensify sanctions?

The Prime Minister: We have had very great difficulty in negotiating with him, particularly when he has sometimes told Commonwealth Prime Ministers that he has not met us even when we have spent one and a half hours with him. That is one of the difficulties, but I think it would be wrong that in no circumstances should there be talks between a British Minister and the régime there provided one recognises that it is an illegal régime and that a return to legality is part of the reason for the meeting.

Oral Answers to Questions — STAFF (SECURITY)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in speeding up the vetting procedures for staff being engaged on sensitive Government work.

The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that all concerned are aware of the need to carry out vetting inquiries as quickly as possible where there is an urgent need to complete them.

Mr. Marten: Can the Prime Minister say how much positive vetting is now done, certainly for the Cabinet Office? Secondly, in view of the known methods of work of foreign intelligence agencies, which often employ fairly humble people as their agents, would it not be wise if all people in No. 10 and the Cabinet Office, for example, were positively vetted?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has rightly drawn attention in what he has said to the kind of problems that we are up against and it is our policy progressively to do that. We have tightened up the procedures enormously in the last


year or two and apart from bringing in known civil servants who have been engaged, for example, on sensitive work so that we know something about them, those who come in while positive vetting is being completed are now being put on less sensitive work until that can be done. I do not say that it is possible as yet to do that in every case in the Cabinet Office, but that is the practice in No. 10.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE VISITS

Mr. Tilney: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider advising Her Majesty The Queen that State visits should start on a Sunday afternoon and not in the middle of a working week in London.

The Prime Minister: Every effort is made when arranging State visits to keep the inevitable disruption of traffic to the minimum. It is not always possible to alter the timetable as suggested, frequently because of the commitments of the visiting Head of State concerned.

Mr. Tilney: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that a few years ago the Lord Mayor's Show was moved to a weekend to make it easier for the City of London to get on with its work? Will he also bear in mind that the bulk of the population in London work outside the Whitehall area and would enjoy the pomp and pageantry of a State visit?

The Prime Minister: Those points will certainly be borne in mind. It was the precedent of the Lord Mayor's Show which led us to consider how far it was possible to move to more convenient times, but we have to think of the timetable of visiting Heads of State.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHAIRMEN OF NATIONALISED BOARDS (RESIGNATIONS)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister how many chairmen of nationalised boards have offered their resignations since 1966; and what action was taken.

The Prime Minister: Six chairmen of nationalised boards have offered their resignations since 1966: five resignations were accepted: one, as the House was informed, was refused.

Dame Irene Ward: In the interests of the nationalised industries, and following the forthright speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last evening, would it not help the nationalised industries if the Prime Minister were to offer himself his own resignation?—[Interruption]—May I have an answer?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Leadbitter: Silly old woman.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear what an hon. Member said just now, but it is bad form to shout across the House.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. I would much rather that hon. Members opposite had their say. I do not care how many of them, or what they say.

Mr. Speaker: I am interested not in any Member in particular. I am interested in the House.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Prime Minister recognise that one of the nationalised boards about whose chairman some of us are somewhat concerned is the Bank of England? In view of a speech which was delivered by a previous Governor of the Bank of England, will the Prime Minister say whether any indication was given when that chairman resigned that he was going to offer his services to an American company, and then coming to lecture the rest of the country about patriotism? Would he not recognise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be brief.

Mr. Foot: Would the Prime Minister recognise that the speech delivered yesterday by an ex-chairman of a nationalised board was a disgrace to the office which he once held, and would he not repudiate the speech which was made?

The Prime Minister: If, as I understand, my hon. Friend is referring to the former Governor of the Bank of England and certainly not making any criticisms of the present one but referring to the former one, of course it would be out of order, I understand, Mr. Speaker, to


comment on a speech made in another place in the present Session, and I think it would be out of order for me to comment on a Member of another place in this way.

Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the forced resignation of the Chairman of British Railways, would the Prime Minister tell us what he has decided should be the salary of the next Chairman of British Railways?

The Prime Minister: No. I have no statement to make to the House about this. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, because he takes a very deep interest in these transport questions, these are questions which should be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport who, of course, will be informing the House at the earliest opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] —at the earliest opportunity—of all the circumstances relating to the filling of this vacancy.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL RENTS

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received regarding deputations over council rent increases; and what replies he has sent.

The Prime Minister: Representations about council rents are properly matters for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, respectively, and I would normally ask them to handle such representations on my behalf.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware, arising from this Question, that there is a great deal of satisfaction that council rents are now being referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, and would he not agree that some Tory councils—some of them—are waging a vendetta against council tenants by putting on that section of the community all the responsibility for and cost of local house building?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, an appropriate cross-section of cases are to be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. I do not think it would be right for me to anticipate those references by saying whether they are waging a

vendetta or anything else. What I think all of us will be concerned with is to have these cases examined, particularly where they appear to be provocative and dangerous to the prices and incomes policy, those which are very steep, very sudden, and those which, like certain recent ones, seem to involve raising revenue account to meet all possible costs four or five years ahead. But it would be better to await the report.

Mr. Lubbock: To assist hon. Members to defend their constituents against enormous rent increases, would the Prime Minister say what criterion he would be prepared to act on in referring them to the Prices and Incomes Board?

The Prime Minister: I said we were going to refer a representative cross-section of cases. Obviously some cases are justified—where, for example, the cost of maintenance, or, indeed, of building, has gone up. Some other cases appear to be very steep by any criterion. We must ask the Board to give its comments on them.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: asked the Prime Minister if he will name all the Ministers to be involved in the forthcoming negotiations with regard to the proposal for Great Britain's entry into the Common Market.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Answer I gave on 6th June to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).—[Vol. 747, c. 189.]

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Will the Prime Minister take as little personal part in these negotiations as possible, because is he aware that he has turned so many political somersaults, broken so many promises, and double-crossed so many people, that hardly anybody believes a single word of what he says?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that all of us on this side of the House will always be ready to listen to him because of the very high regard in which his intelligent pronouncements are always held in all parts of the House.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the tightly-knit group of economically motivated men across the Channel take any different view of our application following devaluation, or are they insisting on a second devaluation before we negotiate our entry?

The Prime Minister: I think my hon. Friend, despite the originality of his phrase, perhaps gives a wrong impression when he thinks that the motivating force in the Economic Community is purely economic, or economic self-interest. It is not, nor is it the case in our own approach. But I have nothing to add, on the latter part of this question, to what I said on Tuesday following the meeting held by the Foreign Ministers of the Six last Monday.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN REGION

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister what is the machinery for liaison between the Minister who has been appointed to deal with Northern Region affairs and the chairmen of the nationalised fuel and power industries.

The Prime Minister: Liaison is maintained through my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

Mr. Shinwell: But is it not extremely important that the Minister who has been appointed to look after Northern Region affairs should be informed from time to time about changes contemplated by the National Coal Board about pit closures? Is it necessary that he should not know until the Minister of Power has been informed—and there may be delays even in that connection?

The Prime Minister: It is important, as my right hon. Friend says, that he should be informed. He is one of the D.E.A. Ministers and there are regular talks between the D.E.A. Ministers and the Minister of Power and between the D.E.A. and the National Coal Board. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, we announced recently that the forthcoming colliery closures, not only this winter but throughout the next three years, will be discussed with the chairmen of the regional planning councils.

CYPRUS

Mr. Maudling: (by Private Notice) asked the Commonwealth Secretary whether he will make a statement about the situation in Cyprus, with special regard to the safety of British personnel, both military and civilian.

The Secretary of State for Common-wealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): Since I last spoke in the House about Cyprus, the cease-fire which I then reported has been largely maintained. In the island itself, incidents have been few and on a small scale. General Grivas, who conducted the military operation which sparked off the present crisis, has been recalled to Athens. On the other hand, I have to report to the House that, outside the island, relations between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus have reached a new and acute stage of tension. We therefore face a very serious situation.
As a precautionary move, I have given the British High Commissioner in Cyprus discretion to arrange for British subjects in certain areas of the island whose presence there is not essential to be concentrated elsewhere in the island where it will be easier to keep in touch with them in the event of an emergency.
The safety of the dependants of British military personnel in Cyprus is the immediate responsibility not of the British High Commissioner, but of the Commander of British Forces, Near East, whose headquarters is in Cyprus. He is maintaining a very close watch on the situation and is in close touch with the British High Commissioner in Nicosia.
There has been intense diplomatic activity in an effort to reduce tension. As a party to the 1960 treaties and a major contributor to the United Nations force, Her Majesty's Government are in the forefront of this effort, which is being deployed in Ankara, Athens and Nicosia. We are keeping in very close touch both with the United States Government and with the Canadian Government, who provide an important contingent of the United Nations force in Cyprus. As the House will know, the Canadian Prime Minister is at present in London, and I took advantage of his presence here to discuss the situation thoroughly with him yesterday.
A special emissary of President Johnson, Mr. Cyrus Vance, has arrived this morning in Ankara, and the United Nations Secretary-General is sending a special representative, Mr. Rolz Bennett, to talk to the Greek, Turkish and Cyprus Governments.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are keeping the situation under constant review, and we stand ready to help the cause of peace in any way that we can.

Mr. Maudling: May I thank the Secretary of State for that statement, and ask him whether he can assure the House that British forces in Cyprus have been given clear instructions about what they should do if the situation should become an emergency?

Mr. Thomson: Yes. Instructions to British forces, both those serving with the United Nations force and those in the sovereign base areas, have been quite precise, and we are satisfied about the position.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the current diplomatic efforts will not be an obstacle in the way of the only just long-term solution, which is free self-determination for the majority and protection for minority rights? Can he say, in the short term, what special consultation there has been with other Governments participating in the United Nations force and what the rôle of British troops in the sovereign base areas would be in the event of aggression on the Republic?

Mr. Thomson: The last question is a hypothetical one, and I would not wish to answer it in the present circumstances. I can tell my hon. Friend that the diplomatic activity has been very intensive, both in the three capitals and in the United Nations, amongst all the participants in the United Nations force.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: While making it clear that this country would not support a Turkish incursion into Cyprus, will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that Greece does not extend her Fascist tentacles into the island?

Mr. Thomson: I think that the aim of everyone concerned with the crisis is to prevent it flaring up into open violence,

and even more into international war. The less we try to apportion blame between the different parties to the crisis, the better, and we ought to concentrate our efforts upon producing a settlement.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, without expressing any view on the merits, that a five-point proposal has been put forward by the three Governments whom he mentioned? If so, has it met with any diplomatic response yet, and will he confirm that British troops would not he involved in implementing any of its proposals?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. What has happened is that the Ambassadors of the United Kingdom in the three capitals, Nicosia, Athens and Ankara, together with their colleagues from the United States and Canada, have jointly put certain specific proposals to each of the Governments designed to reduce tension and lessen the likelihood of renewed fighting on the island.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not this crisis particularly grave for this country because of our obligations under Article 1 of the Treaty of Guarantee? Will the Secretary of State keep the House constantly informed of what is happening? Does he see any prospect of the four-Power consultations provided for under Article 2 of the Treaty taking place?

Mr. Thomson: If we thought that there was a useful purpose to be served by consultation of any character at any point, we should certainly advocate it. In our view, in the first instance, this is a matter for the United Nations and for the Security Council, under a resolution of which the United Nations force is operating there. As the House will know, on 4th February, 1964, our predecessors referred the situation in Cyprus to the Security Council, which remains seized of the position.

Mr. Orme: In relation to that last point, has the Security Council been reconvened to discuss it, and have the British Government considered that?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. We have considered all the possibilities. The Security Council has not been reconvened. The first step and the proper one is the one which the Secretary-General has


taken of sending his senior emissary, Mr. Rolz Bennett, to the three capitals. Before I came into the House—and I apologise for coming in at such short notice—I heard that Mr. Bennett has left the United Nations and is on his way to Ankara.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: In any settlement, will the right hon. Gentleman remember that the Turks are in a minority and that their rights must be protected, because they have been provoked in the past?
How is it proposed that British personnel on the island be protected? Does this not show the folly of getting rid of our aircraft carriers?

Mr. Thomson: I think that the best way in which I can help to protect British people in Cyprus is by giving the House as little information as possible at the moment about the actual way in which that will be done. This is a very tense situation. But the House can rest assured that we are taking every action necessary to look after our own people in Cyprus.

Mr. Shinwell: As both these countries, Greece and Turkey, are associated with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—indeed, both are pledged to come to the support of each other in the event of aggression from an external source—is the Organisation intervening in the matter, more particularly as the Organisation, apart from its military obligations, has now decided to accept certain political responsibilities?

Mr. Thomson: My right hon. Friend is on a very good point, and I hope that his wise words about the mutual obligations accepted by members of N.A.T.O. will be listened to in Athens and Ankara. The Organisation is actively seized of this matter. The Secretary-General, Signor Brosio, has been making a very constructive contribution towards trying to prevent this crisis resulting in violence.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Surely this calls in question the whole basis of N.A.T.O. membership? Have we not here two N.A.T.O. member countries armed by other N.A.T.O. member countries, including ourselves and the United States,

now threatening a Commonwealth country?

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, could you give some guidance on this matter? We have seen it happen twice that two hon. Members have been called from the opposite side. Is this a new procedure?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman had more confidence in the Chair. I called, first, all the hon. Members from both sides of the House who had indicated this morning that they would like to put this Private Notice Question to the Minister. I endeavour to secure a balance as between both sides.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may mean that sometimes I call two from one side at some moment. I can assure the House that I do try to keep the balance.

Mr. Heath: This is an important matter. This is the first occasion during the time that I have been here that Members have been called on the basis of Private Notice Questions which they have put to you and which have been refused. The Chair normally keeps the balance by calling Members from each side. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) is correct that on two occasions this afternoon consecutive speakers have been called from one side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: If the Leader of the Opposition looks at the record I think that he will find that that is not so. If the House thought that the Chair was in any way partial, then the House would have a duty to say so.

Mr. Thomson: In answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, North (Mrs. Lena Jeger) it is a fact, regrettable though it may be, that membership of a security organisation, any more than membership of the Commonwealth, does not inhibit member nations from having disputes with one another.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the gravity of the right hon. Gentleman's statement today, would he consider consulting his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence with a view to getting


him to refute the quite astonishingly irresponsible statement that he made last night about the likelihood of possible hostilities.

Mr. Thomson: I cannot accept for a moment the premise on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is based. I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have been in the closest consultation throughout today.

Mr. Hooson: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your Ruling on a matter of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: This is not the moment to do it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Motions on the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955 (Continuation) Orders.

Prayer on the Peterborough New Town (Designation) Order.

TUESDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 29TH NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill.

Prayer on the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) (Amendment) Order.

THURSDAY, 30TH NOVEMBER, being St. Andrew's Day, there will be a debate on Welsh Affairs.

Prayers on the Patents (Amendment No. 2) Rules and on the Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules.

FRIDAY, 1sT DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions.

MONDAY, 4TH DECEMBER—The proposed business will be: Supply [4th Allotted Day]: Debate on a topic to be announced later.

Motions on the Double Taxation Relief Orders relating to Malaysia and Belgium,

and on the Mink and Coypus (Importation and Keeping) Orders.

Mr. Heath: First, concerning the Business for Monday, the Motions on the Army and the Air Force Act, is the Leader of the House aware that, if it is for the convenience of the House, we prefer to take these formally, so that we can have a debate on the Adjournment on defence affairs in general and, in particular, the cuts which have recently been announced as a result of devaluation?
Secondly, could the Leader of the House tell us when the Government White Paper on fuel policy is to be debated? Has it been abandoned or is to be amended, and when shall we have the amended form?

Mr. Crossman: On the first point, if the House has no objection—it is not for me—we on this side will concur in a general debate on the Adjournment.
On the second point, we have postponed discussion partly because the Specialist Committee on Science and Technology has published a formidable report on the subject and we thought that we should digest this for a few days before we looked at the two together.

Mr. Swain: In view of the great interest and, above all, great anxiety which has been shown in the mining industry these last few weeks, could my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to extending the debate on the Coal Industry Bill on Tuesday after 10 o'clock to any hour though it may be opposed by the Opposition?

Mr. Crossman: I have considered this. I know that a number of hon. Gentlemen wish to speak and I suggest, if it is convenient to the House, that we take the vote at 11.30 and not at 10.

Mr. Peyton: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has been battered by his hon. Friends into delaying discussion of the fuel policy White Paper, would it not be proper to postpone discussion of the Coal Industry Bill until after the fuel policy White Paper has been debated? Should not the Government resist their natural tendency to put the cart before the horse?

Mr. Crossman: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am still unbowed in my resolution in having the White Paper discussed. As for the Coal Industry Bill,


it is extremely important for technical reasons to get it through before Christmas. As we shall have to deal with the remaining stages on the Floor we need to have it next week.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask whether, in view of the recommendations made in the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and its relevance to important decisions about fuel policy, he will arrange for a debate on that before the House considers the White Paper on fuel policy?

Mr. Crossman: What my right hon. Friend has put to me is a possibility. I must be careful about not promising too many debates on the same subject, but that is something to be considered.

Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the postponement of the debate on the White Paper on Fuel Policy, will the Leader of the House allow a short debate on the White Paper on Freight Transport, which proposes to impose £40 million of extra taxation on road transport?

Mr. Crossman: No, because we were able to get the Motion on the Army Act instead of the fuel policy.
As for the serial story of White Papers on transport, I think that they will culminate in a great debate on Second Reading.

Mr. Mayhew: On the defence debate, is the Leader of the House aware that once again a good deal more information has been given to the Press on this subject than the House? What action is being taken to make available to the House the statement in answer to questions of the Secretary of State for Defence in advance of the debate?

Mr. Crossman: I have no knowledge of what was said outside the House, but I am glad that we are to have a debate on Monday so as to satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stodart: In view of the Prime Minister's assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would refer to the question of the agricultural expansion programme during the course of his reply last night, and forgot to do so, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to tell the House next

week what plans he has for getting this programme under way?

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that it was an omission in the stress of a very exciting debate which meant that that reference was not made. I will ask my right hon. Friend what action he will take to make the situation good for those interested in agriculture.

Mr. Shinwell: In the matter of the deferment of the debate on the White Paper on Fuel Policy, is it not consistent with modern thinking on Parliamentary reform, and with my right hon. Friend's own tendencies, that from time to time it is desirable in the interests of Parliamentary democracy that back benchers should seek to correct decisions taken by the Executive?

Mr. Crossman: Certainly. I am always aware that my right hon. Friend will be able to teach me more about Parliamentary reform than I could ever learn in any other way.

Mr. Lubbock: As it may take some time to recalculate the figures in the White Paper on Fuel Policy in the light of the effects of devaluation and as, meanwhile, the very important report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology dealing with the nuclear reactor industry has been published, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a great mistake to incorporate a debate on the Select Committee's report with that on the White Paper on Fuel Policy? Will he arrange to allocate a separate day for the Select Committee's Report between now and Christmas?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot promise two separate days between now and Christmas. One day may have to be postponed until after Christmas. I think that we shall have to try to do the two separately.

Dr. David Kerr: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a number of Motions in his name, and supported by right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, and ask when we can discuss the further reform the House?

Mr. Crossman: I hope to include a statement about the Motions on procedure in next week's Business Statement.

Mr. Jopling: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed in the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, published today, that, as with the Report of a similar Committee on Agriculture, there is serious criticism of the way in which the work of the Committee was interfered with by the Government, and by the Foreign Office in particular? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we must debate these Reports very soon, particularly as these Committees are being reconvened at the moment, and they must know where they stand?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the interest in this subject. With regard to the first Report on agriculture, I think I am right in saying that a short Command Paper will be issued shortly, if it has not already come out, giving the Government's reply. Clearly, we cannot debate this kind of issue until both sides of the case have been stated.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 35 calling for dissociation from the United States of America on Vietnam?

[That this House notes that leaders of opinion in all walks of life are now calling for dissociation by Great Britain from the bombing of Vietnam, including the following scientists, Sir Christopher Andrewes, F.R.S., Professor Max Born, F.R.S., Nobel Laureate, Lord Boyd-Orr, F.R.S., Nobel Laureate, Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, F.R.S., Dr. E. J. H. Corner, C.B.E., F.R.S., Professor C. A. Coulson, F.R.S., Richard Doll, F.R.S., Professor David Finney, F.R.S., Professor S. J. Folley, F.R.S., Professor Roger Gilliatt, Professor William Hayes, F.R.S., Sir Joseph B. Hutchinson, F.R.S., Sir Julian Huxley. F.R.S., Professor H. D. Kay, C.B.E., F.R.S., Professor W. O. Kermack, F.R.S., Dr. Sidnie M. Manton, F.R.S., Dr. D. M. Needham, F.R.S., Dr. Joseph Needham, F.R.S., Professor A. C. Offord, F.R.S., Professor R. E. Peierls, F.R.S., Professor L. S. Penrose. F.R.S., N. W. Pirie, F.R.S., Professor Martin R. Pollock, F.R.S., Professor C. F. Powell, F.R.S., Nobel Laureate, Professor the Lord Ritchie-Calder, Dr. David Shoenberg, F.R.S., Dr. R. L. M. Synge, F.R.S., Nobel Laureate, Professor C. H. Waddington, C.B.E., F.R.S., Professor M. H. F. Wilkins, F.R.S., Nobel Laureate; and urges Her Majesty's Government to make it clear that the

United States Administration can no longer count on the support of the United Kingdom in its military activities in Vietnam.]

Will my right hon. Friend provide an opportunity for the Government to change their mind fruitfully in this respect, as they have done in relation to devaluation?

Mr. Crossman: I shall communicate that desire to my right hon. Friend. On the question of Vietnam, I think that we may have to have a debate on foreign policy before the Christmas Recess, and I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.

Mr. Grieve: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Motion No. 44, deploring the action of the Minister of Health in drastically reducing the number of pay beds in hospitals?

[That this House, mindful of the fact that Section 5 of the National Health Service Act gives power to the Minister to set aside beds in hospitals providing hospital and specialist services under the Act for the treatment of private patients, and recognising the widespread demands for such beds by patients desirous of having private medical treatment, deplores the decision of the Minister of Health to reduce from 5,764 to 4,379 the number of such beds made available.]

May we have a very early opportunity of debating this Motion?

Mr. Crossman: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to a Question on this subject on 6th November.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As the right hon. Gentleman is allowing a debate on Welsh affairs on St. Andrew's Day, will he arrange to debate English affairs on St. David's Day, and Scottish affairs on St. George's Day?

Mr. Crossman: All these possibilities are worthy of consideration in a fully reformed House of Commons.

Mr. Orme: Following my hon. Friend's reply about a foreign affairs debate, and particularly in relation to Vietnam, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will provide a separate day for a debate on Vietnam, because the situation is deteriorating to such an extent that it is urgent that the House should discuss it as soon as possible?

Mr. Crossman: I shall consider that. I have considered very carefully the number of days that we have before Christmas, and I would not be too optimistic that I shall find time for that.

Mr. Maude: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether, in the national interest, the time has come when we ought to have at least a half-day's debate on the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, as there is a feeling in the country that the measures and policies being taken need more discussion than can be had in question and answer after a statement?

Mr. Crossman: Having declared a personal interest, I would say, Yes, I shall consider that very seriously indeed.

Mr. English: Has my right hon. Friend seen Motion No. 40 relating to the attack by the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) on our colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell)?

[That this House deplores the unwarranted personal attack made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South without notice on 14th November on the hon. Member for Buckingham; recognises that the hon. Member for Buckingham was acting with the authority of the House as Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee and with the express approval of that Sub-Committee and the Services Committee; and would regret any incidence in the future of an hon. Member being subjected to personal attack for carrying out the duties imposed upon him by the House.]

Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing some time to discuss this Motion?

Mr. Crossman: It was with pleasure that I saw this Motion and noted the number of right hon. and hon. Members who joined me in deprecating the kind of behaviour in which the hon. and learned Gentleman indulged in making this attack on my hon. Friend. I do not think that we need time to debate it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss merits at Business Question time.

Mr. Blaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer about statements made to a Press conference by his

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence? The Leader of the House said that he had no knowledge of what his right hon. Friend said outside the House. Would not it help if the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends were to make their statements inside the House? He would then know what was going on. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for his right hon. Friend to make a statement on this very important matter before the debate?

Mr. Crossman: I think that that is an unreasonable request. I said that I was aware that yesterday, in the course of his speech, the Prime Minister made a statement on the defence cuts. Almost simultaneously a Press conference was being held by my right hon. Friend. I am not aware of the text of that conference. All I said was that we would have a debate next Monday, thanks to the Opposition, during which my right hon. Friend will be able to satisfy the House about the questions which have been raised.

Mr. Maclennan: When considering the request for an extended debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of the matters it raises are not directly related to the fuel policy of this country, and that a separate debate for considering the purely technological questions and the future of the Atomic Energy Authority would be welcomed by the House?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of that, and that is why I am prepared to consider having a separate debate on this first and very important Report of one of our specialist Committees. I have not had time to read the Report. I would like to read it over the weekend before I make up my mind.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow time to debate my Motion No. 42?

[That this House deplores the highhanded methods of the hon. Member for Buckingham, in his capacity as Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee, and his lack of consultation with Members and staff, and hopes that his conduct in this respect will improve in the present session and, noting that all possible steps were taken to give notice to the hon. Member for Buckingham, regrets his absence from


the House on 14th November and consequent failure to give due explanation of his actions.]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could link it with Motion No. 40. If it is any help to the Leader of the House, I would gladly move a motion of Censure on him for putting a Motion on the Order Paper and not allowing time for an Amendment to be debated.

Mr. Crossman: In view of Mr. Speaker's recent Ruling on my remarks, I must say, No.

Sir C. Osborne: The Leader of the House will remember that last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in what was otherwise a very sensible speech, made a most serious accusation against Sir Paul Chambers and some other men. This affects their honour, and the position of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of urgency, find time to debate this very serious accusation, and let the Chancellor have time to explain it?

Mr. Crossman: I suggest to my hon. Friend that which parts of my right hon. Friend's speech one finds most sensible is a question of taste, but I find the whole speech worthy of discussion.

Mr. Edward n Taylor: In view of the rather scandalous situation which exists over the vacant chairmanship of British Railways, and the salary which may or may not be paid to whoever is willing to take it, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that early next week the Minister of Transport makes a statement on the situation as the Prime Minister promised at Question Time?

Mr. Crossman: I shall certainly communicate with my right hon. Friend. I am sure that she is anxious to make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Worsley: On Wednesday's business, when we are to discuss the Family Allowances Bill, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that Government Amendments which have been promised, and which look like altering the whole sense of the Bill, have not been tabled? Will he ensure that they are tabled this week?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly guarantee that any Amendments the Govern-

ment wish to make are tabled this week.

Mr. David Price: On what grounds, either of logic or intellectual consistency, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to debate the tactics of coal before we debate the total strategy on fuel?

Mr. Crossman: This is purely a question of time. The Coal Industry Bill needs to be got through before Christmas, and the more philosophic reflections can conceivably be postponed to a more opportune date.

Mr. G. Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of providing an early opportunity for a debate on the White Paper on Freight Transport, to enable my hon. Friends and myself to point out the particular folly of applying the proposals to Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue merits on Business questions.

Mr. Crossman: I will consider it, but I suggest that if the Opposition wish to do this they have their own opportunities for making time if they insist. They have had one day on it in their own time, but we intend to discuss it on Second Reading.

Mr. John Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman had notice of my urgent Motion deploring the very damaging and misleading imputations made by his hon. Friends yesterday that British residents have been speculating against sterling, when it is not, in fact, possible for British residents to speculate in foreign currency at all?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue in his request for time. He can only ask for time to debate the Motion.

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that I have had notice of this Motion. Which number is it?

Mr. John Smith: It is much too urgent to have a number.

Mr. Goodhart: Does the Leader of the House actually mean to tell the House that it is not to have an opportunity to discuss the final arrangements for the independence of South Arabia before its unfortunate people are handed over to


people who were once regarded as terrorists?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot remember that I ever suggested that in the course of the Business statement, but if there is an opportunity for a debate that is a new question.

Mr. Allason: As it is rather dangerous to rely on Press reports of what a Minister has said, could the Leader of the House arrange to place in the Library the statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence at his Press conference, so that we may read it and be better able to debate on Monday?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that that is necessary. My right hon. Friend will certainly make a speech in this House. He will probably be the second speaker in the debate.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. Would it be in order to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) to make a statement on any plans he may have with reference to Government business before the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House regards that as a rhetorical question.

Mr. Ridley: Since the Coal Industry Bill derives entirely from the White Paper on Fuel Policy, what is the point of taking away the White Paper to reconsider it and proceeding with the Bill? It is impossible to alter the Bill after it has been passed by this House.

Mr. Crossman: I did not make any statement about reconsideration. I said that we have postponed discussion of the Motion to approve the White Paper.

Mr. Onslow: Is it not time that we had a debate on the work of the Overseas Development Ministry, the costs of British aid to work overseas and their connection with the decision to devalue?

Mr. Crossman: I will consider that and if there is enough support for the idea I will consider the possibility of time being given.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that over the weekend the Secretary of State for Defence will be studying papers

on defence, will my right hon. Friend advise him to read the excellent article in The Guardian for today? Then we shall be able to save a few hundred million pounds more.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Business questions should be business questions.

Mr. Bob Brown: Will my right hon. Friend make clear to hon. Members opposite that the Coal Industry Bill must be discussed next week, because, whether we discuss fuel policy or not, there are social policies to be met, and met by the Bill?

Mr. Crossman: I am glad to have that reinforcement from my hon. Friend. It is necessary to get the Bill through because of the important impact it will make on the lives of people in the industry.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Hooson: I wish to obtain your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege affecting the privileges of this House.
I draw attention to the magazine Town, the December edition, apparently published today, and an article in it headed, "War with England", which purports to give a description of the Free Wales Army.
In this article, there is a threat, apparently, to the life of a right hon. Member of this House, the Secretary of State for Wales, and to myself and possibly others in conjunction with our duties in accordance with the Oath of Allegiance taken in this House.
I quote from a part of the article on page 48 of the magazine:
The Free Wales Army would dearly like to blow up the Severn Bridge. These days, when they blow things up, the boys go out with sten guns and Dyfed ap Coslett for one would not at all mind using them. 'We shoot to kill', he said, with great passion, pounding one fist in the other. 'Nothing stops us'.
'We have dossiers on all the traitors, all of them. Cledwyn Hughes and Emlyn Hooson and all the traitors who have sold Wales out to England.'
'Sure', said Cayo, who is not so intense, and better humoured, sipping his Guinness, 'and what about the councillor down the road?'
'I'll have him, too. He's a bloody traitor, I'll shoot him.'
Later in the same article there is a description of the production of the guns and this is the description:
The guns came out of hiding wrapped in plastic, a Mauser machine pistol, a sten gun


and magazines of live ammunition, two 38 pistols, a 22 rifle, some shot-guns and sundry other weapons to varying degrees lethal.
Of the soldiers it says"
The flame, if it comes, when it comes, will come when somebody is shot. It is the way these things usually happen. The fore-runners of the I.R.A., according to Mr. Augustine Birrell, secretary for Ireland in 1916, were a bunch of half-educated lunatics with no popular backing.
This is a matter to which I draw attention. I invite you to say, Mr. Speaker, whether there is disclosed in this article a prima facie case of breach of privilege of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member will please bring the periodical immediately to the Table.

Copy of the said magazine delivered in.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that, according to custom, I have a day to consider whether the words of which the hon. and learned Gentleman complained constitute a prima facie breach of privilege. I will rule on the matter tomorrow.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While considering that matter, I wonder whether you would reflect on the older precedent where, instead of going through all this from time to time, the House can decide forthwith that the thing represents a contempt of the House so contemptible that we can pass straight on.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that one of the Committees of the House has been considering the whole question of privilege and that sooner or later the House

will be considering what is the best way to deal with this whole matter of privilege. I am grateful to the right hon. Member.

Mr. Maxwell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I would like to obtain your advice on a matter of privilege, a letter which is published in today's issue of the Illustrated—

Mr. Speaker: It would be elementary courtesy if anyone who wished to raise a matter of privilege would first let the Chair know something about it. This is the first I have heard about this.

Mr. Maxwell: I have just received the publication which I have in my hand and I have not had any time to consult anybody about what I ought to do about it, Sir. I would be grateful if you would either permit me to raise the matter now, or alternatively, I should be glad to do it tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the best way would be for the hon. Member to consult me after I leave the Chair.

BILL PRESENTED

MAURITIUS INDEPENDENCE

Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Mauritius of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth, presented by Mr. George Thomson; supported by Mr. Richard Crossman, Mr. George Thomas, and The Attorney General; read the First time to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.8 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a Bill to increase the maximum number of judges at various levels in the judiciary of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Bill asks Parliament to approve changes in the statutory maxima and the reason for doing this is that an all-round increase in judicial strength is now essential.
The Government take the view that it is undesirable to have to legislate every two or three years on this matter and that it would be much better to put up the permitted maxima to a realistic figure now and thus to avoid an early recurrence of the present situation. Even if the recommendations of the Beeching Commission and other bodies reduce the need for so many judges, which in my view is unlikely, there is no fear of a number of them becoming redundant. Within the higher judiciary they now have to retire at the age of 75 and county court judges have to retire at the age of 72. Premature vacancies are not infrequent, and, finally, vacancies do not have to be filled if the state of judicial business does not require it.
The need for more judges in all parts of the United Kingdom arises because of several distinct trends affecting the administration of justice as a whole. In many classes of case there has been an increase of business and in nearly all classes the cases take longer to dispose of. This is due to a variety of reasons, but I think that the primary one is the increase in the complexity, the sophistication and the comparative affluence of our modern society.
There are not only far more criminal cases for trial, but the cases are frequently more difficult and take longer to try and there is an increase in the number of appeals. An illustration of the hardship which flows to the citizens now from the law's delays is that, at present, there are some courts where a

person remanded in custody has to wait in prison three or four months before his trial comes on, and if, at his trial, he is subsequently found not guilty, this is a very serious deprivation of liberty.
In civil litigation, there is more work at many, though not all, levels. The reasons for this include the increasingly wide use of legal aid, a rise in the divorce rate, the fact that more disputes tend to be litigated and the more complicated nature of the issues which do arise for decision.
The traditional remedy for delays in the courts is the appointment of more judges. I appreciate that this has been criticised as a policy of despair by some who point to the need to reform procedures in administration, to rationalise judicial sittings and to take measures of that kind, and I concede that these criticisms have some validity. But I assure the House that the Government are doing all they can to improve the system.
The Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions, under the chairmanship of Lord Beeching, is examining the assizes and quarter session system; a committee under Lord Justice Winn is considering the important subject of personal injuries litigation; Mr. Justice Payne's Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts is studying the execution of judgments in civil actions; and, of course, the Law Commission is looking at many other related matters. So there is a concentrated effort to improve the arrangements for the administration of justice.
However, the need for more judges is an urgent one and, in the view of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, it would be quite wrong to await the outcome of the deliberations of these commissions and committees before anything is done about it. I think that it would be quite wrong to put up with delays that may result in serious injustices when the appointment of more judges would reduce those delays. In any event, as I have ventured to say, I would be surprised if the proposals of the Beeching Commission results in the need for less judges.
The truth is that we have too few judges in the United Kingdom, certainly in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. The statistics show that, in England and Wales, there are only 382 professional


whole-time judges. This figure includes masters, registrars, district registrars of the High Court and registrars of the county court. There are, therefore, about eight whole-time professional judges per million of the population in England and Wales.
That the figure, for what it may be worth—end it is of some interest—may be compared with 164 per million in Germany, 82 per million in France, 76 per million in Canada, 34 per million in the United States, 29 per million in Australia and 24 per million in New Zealand.

Mr. George Willis: Has my right hon. and learned Friend the figure for Scotland? I have raised this before.

The Attorney-General: I have not it readily at hand, but I will have it for a later stage in the debate. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I shall have something to say in a moment about the Scottish position.
These figures I have given are, of course, and I readily admit it, in part a reflection of the great contribution our unpaid lay magistracy makes to the administration of justice in our country.
In Scotland, there is not the same urgent need for more judges, but there has been an increase in the business of the courts which makes it expedient to take advantage of the opportunity of this Bill to increase the statutory maximum of the judges of the Court of Session from 18 to 20. It should also be remembered that, of these 18 judges, Lord Kilbrandon is Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, to which he gives his full time and does not sit as a judge, and that Lord Wheatley is Chairman of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland.
There is, therefore, no intention at the present time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East may like to know, of actually increasing the number of judges sitting in the Court of Session. As I said at the beginning, this Bill merely provides for an increase in the maximum number of judges at various levels of the judiciary and it does not necessarily follow that there will be any increase in the actual numbers at all levels.
But I am bound to say that the growth of judicial work does suggest that additional appointments may be necessary sooner or later and there is advantage in taking authority now to increase the statutory maximum of the Court of Session rather than leaving the matter to a separate Scottish Bill later on.
There is an urgent need now for more judges in Northern Ireland. The present position there has been unchanged since 1920, when the Government of Ireland Act provided that the High Court of Northern Ireland should consist of three judges—the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and two puisne judges. Despite a steady increase in the volume of work, this number has not been increased.
But the volume of civil work is likely to increase more rapidly as the result of the introduction of legal aid in Northern Ireland two years ago both for civil and criminal cases. Unhappily, as has been the experience of England, there has also been a steady increase in criminal business. Finally, it is no longer practicable for the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland to look for assistance, as he has done frequently since 1962, from retired judges.
I shall now say something of the more detailed reasons for increases in the statutory maxima which apply to specific classes of judge. I start at the highest level—the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. There are nine of them. They are the permanent judges of the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Their number has not been increased since it was raised from seven to nine in 1947. The Court in the House of Lords is always composed of five Lords of Appeal and the Privy Council is composed of five or three, depending on the nature of the business before the Council.
When five Lords of Appeal are needed in the House of Lords and at the same time a further five in the Privy Council, it is necessary for the Lord Chancellor to seek assistance from non-permanent law Lords such as former Lord Chancellors, retired Lords of Appeal and, for the purposes of the Privy Council of course, judges from Commonwealth countries. This year, judges from Australia, New Zealand and Trinidad


have come to the rescue of the work of the Privy Council.
But the "reserves", if I may call them that without impertinence, for the House of Lords, are in short supply. There is now only one former Lord Chancellor available, namely the noble Lord, Lord Dilhorne, while the Lord Chief Justice of England and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, who are, of course, eligible to sit as law lords, are nearly always far too busy in their own courts to be able to lend a hand and the situation is aggravated by the fact that their many other duties have prevented recent Lord Chancellors from sitting judicially as often as their predecessors used to do.
In addition, by reason, if I may say so, of their quality and standing, there is a constant demand for the services of law lords to preside over Royal Commissions and other important matters of State, and the work Lord Donovan is at present doing in presiding over the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations is a good example. The position is so serious that the work of the Privy Council would, as I have said, have been brought to a standstill had not the Lord Chancellor been able to secure the assistance afforded by some Commonwealth judges.
Plainly, it is undesirable that the highest courts in the land, or in the Commonwealth so far as the Privy Council is concerned, should not have a full complement and be in a position to meet the demands upon them. Accordingly, Clause 1(1,a) increases the maximum number of Lords of Appeal from nine to 11.
The need for more Lords of Appeal is matched by the need for more judges in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal, which now has to deal with criminal as well as civil appeals, is keeping abreast of the vast increase in the number of criminal appeals only at the expense of the civil work. At the end of the Easter sittings this year, 91 Queen's Bench appeals were undisposed of, compared with 61 at the same time last year. Up to the end of 1966, the normal time between entry of an appeal and its hearing was about three months. This has recently increased to four months, and, in order to maintain even this rate in the Court of Appeal, it has been necessary

for the Master of the Rolls to borrow judges from the High Court whenever this has been possible.
The House may well think that it is of great importance that the work of the Court of Appeal should not be allowed to fall into arrear. In practice, the court is the final court of appeal for most cases, since only a very small percentage of appeals go on to the House of Lords. The development of the law, therefore, depends to a large extent upon the quality of the judicial work of the Court of Appeal, and it is not at all satisfactory for the lords justices of appeal who man it to work under such pressure that they find it difficult to give adequate consideration to their judgments. Clause 1(1,b,i), therefore, increases the maximum number of Lords Justices from 11 to 13.
There is also increased pressure on the High Court judges, who, quite apart from performing their judicial duties, are in constant demand for committees and other forms of public service. At the moment, no fewer than 21 of the 86 members of the higher judiciary sit on committees or Commissions. A recent illustration was the Aberfan Tribunal presided over by Lord Justice Edmund Davies, which lasted many months and took him away from the work of the Court of Appeal.
In the Queen's Bench Division, the judges of which have to take the civil and criminal work at assizes, and civil work in London, help with criminal work in the Court of Appeal, and sit at the Old Bailey and in the Restrictive Practices Court, the situation is serious. The increase in crime is one of the most important factors. The Queen's Bench judges sit with the Lords Justices in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. The vast increase in the number of criminal appeals, to which I have already referred, involved increases in the number of applications for leave to appeal disposed of from 2,852 in 1965 to 4,403 last year, and to an estimated 5,900 in 1967.
Thus, there has been a doubling in the number of applications for leave to appeal in the course of the last two or three years. The main burden of this increase in numbers has fallen largely on the Queen's Bench judges, exercising the jurisdiction conferred by Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, on a "single judge". The number of cases


referred to the single judge has increased by 127 per cent. during the last two years.
The demands of criminal business on the time of the Queen's Bench judges who try the more serious criminal cases has also increased. Although the number of persons tried at assizes has fallen slightly, the time taken to try them has increased. The decrease in the numbers of persons tried is due to the extension, in 1962, of the powers of magistrates' courts to try indictable offences summarily. The increase in the length of time is due to the fact that the judges now deal with the longer and more difficult cases. The problem familiar to hon. Members who practise at the Old Bailey may be illustrated by the fact, that the number of cases lasting more than five days at the Old Bailey has increased from 10 in 1952 to 104 in 1966. In short, since 1962 the easier and shorter cases have been dealt with by magistrates and quarter sessions, and the more difficult and longer cases by the judges and Crown Courts.
The increase in the time spent trying criminal cases has been, inevitably at the expense of civil work. This has been at a time when the demands made upon the time of judges by civil actions has also increased, though, admittedly, nothing like as sharply. The result has been that the number of pending civil proceedings awaiting trial has risen substantially. A serious backlog of civil actions can only result in inconvenience and injustice to the parties. In order to help out, it has been necessary to appoint Commissioners of Assize, an expedient which is generally condemned both by lawyers and, very often, by litigants. So far this year Commissioners of Assize have had to be appointed to sit on 14 occasions, as compared with three in 1962, five in 1963 and 10 in 1966.
There has also been a substantial increase in the work of the Divorce Division. In addition, if divorce judges are hereafter to try all short defended cases, of which the county court judges tried 860 in 1966, the result of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1967, will be to increase further the burden falling on the Divorce Division.
Finally, since 1960, there has been an appreciable increase in the number of proceedings disposed of in court in the Chancery Division. The Chancery judges are now under considerable pressure, and

this is reflected in the fact that in cases in the witness list the interval between setting down and trial is now about 12 months, and the delays in the non-witness list are also increasing, although the recent appointment of a new judge to the Chancery Division will make some improvement.
I am sure that the House will agree that it is quite wrong that persons awaiting trial and litigants should be kept waiting an excessively long time for their cases to be heard. Clause 1(1,b,ii), therefore, makes it possible to appoint additional judges where necessary to deal with the backlog of cases which is building up by increasing the maximum number of puisne judges of the High Court in England and Wales from 63 to 70. At present, it is not possible to make a single further appointment as there are already 63 judges in post.
There is also a need for more county court judges. This stems partly from the increase in the work of the county courts, including the increase in the number of undefended divorces tried by the county court judges as commissioners, and partly from the policy of arranging for the county court judges to help with the disposal of criminal cases. This policy, in my view, is good for the administration of justice. County court judges sit regularly on a rota basis at the two Crown Courts at Manchester and Liverpool as well as at Greater London Sessions. In addition, 36 county court judges give assistance regularly at other quarter sessions. Accordingly Clause 1, (1,b,iii) increases the maximum number of county court judges in England and Wales from 90 to 97.
We come now to Clause 1(1,c) relating to Scotland. I am now able to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East the figure for which he asked. That is that the number of professional judges per million of the population in Scotland is 15, compared to the figure in England of eight, and compared to 164 in Germany and 82 per million in France. I hope that my right hon. Friend does not think that it is over manned or that the use of the word "racket" about those hardworking professional judges in Scotland is at all justified.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: Would the right hon. and learned


Gentleman agree that the reason for the figure in Scotland is that we do not rely on lay magistrates to the same extent as in England, but instead the professional sheriff's substitute is the judge in the lower courts with a very wide range of civil and criminal cases?

The Attorney-General: I apprehended that this was the case, but I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for reassuring me that this is so. As I said at the beginning of my observations, we owe a great duty to the "great unpaid" in England, namely, the lay magistracy, for their contribution, and for the remarkable result that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland we are the least judged community—perhaps I should say the least professionally judged. Whether the community regards that as a good thing is not for me to judge.
Clause 1(1,c) increases the maximum number of judges in the Court of Session from 18 to 20, but it is not intended to make any appointments at present. Clause 1(1,d) increases the maximum number of puisne judges in the High Court of Northern Ireland from two to four. As I have said, there is an urgent need for more judges in Northern Ireland. Clause 1(2) will enable further increases to be made in the maximum numbers in any of the classes of judges mentioned in subsection (1) by means of an Order in Council. Clause 1(3) as the House will see ensures that any Order in Council under subsection (2) must be approved by Resolution of both Houses before it is submitted to Her Majesty.
The House will have observed that the Bill does not repeal the statutory provisions which exist providing that no vacancy among the Law Lords, or in the High Court or the Court of Session is to be filled until the Lord Chancellor, or the Secretary of State in the case of Scotland, with the concurrence of the Treasury, is satisfied that the state of business requires that the vacancy shall be filled. Therefore, quite apart from the interest of the Lord Chancellor in seeing that no unnecessary judges are appointed, there is the Treasury watchdog to make assurance doubly sure.
In the case of the Lords Justices of Appeal and county court judges, to whom these provisions do not extend, in prac-

tice the Lord Chancellor has for many years obtained the concurrence of the Treasury before recommending any additional appointments. There is accordingly little or no risk of a plethora of unnecessary judges being appointed, or a kind of judicial Parkinson's Law operating, when both the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury in England, and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Treasury in respect of Scottish appointments keep, as I am sure is the case, a watchful eye upon these matters.
Accordingly, I commend this necessary Bill to the House.

4.34 p.m.

Sir Peter Rawlinson: The Attorney-General will probably have heard of the rather confused judge, Sergeant Arabin, who once said to a man convicted of bigamy:
If ever there was a clearer case of bigamy before me this case is that case.
I will not go so far as that judge over this Bill, but it is clear to me and most hon. Members, after what the Attorney-General has said that this is a necessary Bill.
This Bill will create an establishment of 94 High Court judges in England and Wales whereas only 25 years ago there were 40 High Court judges and Court of Appeal judges. We will look to the Lord Chancellor, when he comes to make his appointments, not in the popular phrase of the time to devalue the judiciary, but to appoint judges of the very highest experience and standing. It is right that we should take this opportunity to speak of the high standing that our judges have, here and overseas.
Anyone who has been a Law Officer, or has been on any delegation, or travelled overseas on behalf of a professional body knows that whatever people overseas may think of other activities or sections of our nation, the judges are held in the very highest esteem. We have to recollect that the law is made by the House of Commons and the interpretation and administration of it is for the judges. It behoves us, in thinking of the number of judges that should be appointed, and therefore the time of the judges in dealing with cases before them, to produce some kind of legislation which is comprehensible.
When I hear the talk of the House of Commons reformers who want to


change much of the procedure of the House of Commons, I feel that more time and trouble should be taken on legislation rather than in debates on these rather unreal occasions which we have frequently. It is the duty of the House to see that legislation can be interpreted. Some of it, as hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will agree, is on the borderlines of incomprehension. While I, as a Tory, want to see as little legislation as possible, I certainly want to see that our legislation is as good and as comprehensible as possible.
I well remember as Solicitor-General moving Schedule 4 of the Finance Act, 1963—a most difficult and abstruse piece of drafting—at four o'clock in the morning. I wondered whether many could really give wise and clear-headed attention to these complicated matters at that time. It not only affects the reputation of Parliament but it also affects the time of the courts, and above all the possibility of public comprehension of the law.
The Attorney-General has given some very useful and interesting facts about the population per judge. My researches, I do not know whether he can corroborate them, show that in the early 1920s there were 33 Lord Justices and High Court judges to a population of 38 million, which gives us about 1 million per judge. In 1966 there were 77 Lord Justices and High Court judges, with a population of 48 million, which gives us 624,000 per judge. That showed an improvement at any rate, but as the Attorney-General has pointed out a greater improvement is undoubtedly needed.
The very favourable Scottish position has already been pointed out and will, I know, give satisfaction to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing). I only hope that we will have a Welsh Attorney-General who will help to put matters right and remove this injustice towards England.
The position of the profession with regard to the matter of judges and the appointment of more judges is that we are "waiting for Beeching". We are waiting to see what Lord Beeching's Commission has to say about the administration of justice. Undoubtedly his report will be an important one, and have far-reaching results. I would corroborate

what the Attorney-General has said about the difficult situation on the circuits, and the amount of crime that has to he dealt with at the Assize towns where the single red judge certainly cannot deal with the business and his brother judge has to be switched from civil to crime. I know of cases of triple remanets on circuit. That, of course, is not good enough and does not seem to be as good as it was in the past.
We are often criticised by other English speaking countries for the speed of our judicial process. Many hon. Members will know that in other English speaking countries where there is a similar system of law the criminal process is very much more long drawn out. But I believe and have always believed that it is right that we should insist on the periods between arrest and trial and between conviction and appeal being as short as possible.
I have been told only today—and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood (Mr. Crowder) will know better than I—that at the Central Criminal Court custody cases—cases of people in custody—are taking some four months to come to trial, bails between four and nine months and Section 1 cases, as they are called, killing by dangerous driving, when a person is on bail, as is always so in these motoring cases, sometimes between nine to eleven months to come to trial. It is an impossible situation when one has to rely on the recollection of witnesses in a motoring accident many months previously, and it is a situation which must be improved.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of three to four months in the civil list, but there does not seem to me to be a great deal of time, not a reprehensible delay, between judgment and appeal. I can tell him of a case in the past year when the trial was in April, concluded in May and by July the appeal had been heard and the matter was over. I think that the position is very much worse in the provinces than it is in London.
There is no doubt, however, that many solicitors find great difficulty in getting fixtures and fixed dates, which are popular and important, so that they can be sure that the case will come on at a certain time. We have to look at the convenience of witnesses, expert witnesses and the parties. It has always


seemed to me quite absurd that a judge should complain about being underemployed and not having enough work to do if the reason for it is the convenience of the parties and the witnesses, because they are the people who should be put first. Solicitors have a considerable preference for fixtures and the fixed list and I hope that with the increase in judges it will be possible to extend that.
The productivity of judges of course depends a great deal upon the kind of case which they are trying, and recently the long criminal fraud cases have been those burdening the lists everywhere. In 1964 I very much welcomed the fact that my noble Friend, Lord Dilhorne, then Lord Chancellor, and my right hon. Friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, then Home Secretary, established a joint committee to deal with the law of evidence. I have always felt that this was what affected the length of a trial and that there was much which could be done to improve it. As a consequence, we were able to see the first improvements in the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, when we had some of the fruits of that Committee, and I hope that improvements in the law of evidence will shorten cases and therefore make a saving in judges' time.
I was interested to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say about divorce. Are we to expect soon some proposals for a family law division? As I understand it, through the initiative of a private Member, we are to have proposals about divorce. All this may affect the position.
I hope that we shall not evolve a position in which there appears to be a whole-time judicial profession, starting right from the earliest days of a man's career as a lawyer. It would be a mistake. First, we would then get a lower intellectual quality, because the ablest lawyers might well be kept off the bench. Secondly, it would lower the standards of independence, particularly in the early days of such a judicial career when a young man anxious for promotion might be eager to please. One of the safeguards of an independent judiciary is the fact that we have the safeguards against removal. Thirdly, it would create a very inbred profession

of people without much experience of life and practice and isolated from actual problems. However, I distinguish between these and promotions from the county court bench which I personally would welcome and encourage, particularly now that county court judges are having much experience of crime.
A high standard of appointment to the bench is of the greatest importance, and the independence of the bench is something which we should never underestimate. The absence of a written constitution and the powers which are given to Parliament, which, as we all well know, nowadays in practice means the powers given to the House of Commons and therefore to a party political majority, are a situation which calls for great independence of the judiciary, the independence which is given by the difficulty of removal. I therefore want to take this opportunity to emphasise my hope that we will maintain the present position.
Like some other hon. Members who are here today, I ought to disclose an interest in the fact that the more who are appointed to the bench, the fewer rivals we experience in our practice. Perhaps the Attorney-General recollects that Mr. George Johnson refused an appointment to the United States Supreme Court by saying, "I would rather talk to the damned fools than listen to them." I hasten to dissociate myself in the present context from any such irreverent view about judges here.
We have here a Bill which is very necessary and I certainly support the Attorney-General in it and believe that it will assist in the administration of justice.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. George Willis: A few months ago, when the then Criminal Justice Bill was introduced, I looked forward to its being followed by a Scottish Criminal Justice Bill which would deal with the number of Scottish judges as well as other Scottish criminal matters requiring legislation. However, the Government—and I say this so that they may know that we noticed this—introduced measures into the Criminal Justice Bill in such a way as to preclude their being properly discussed in Committee, and they are now introducing these provisions about the number of


Scottish judges. I register my dissatisfaction not so much about this item, as about the procedure as a whole.
The Bill proposes that the number of judges for Scotland may be increased from 18 to 20. It is only four years ago that we raised the permitted number from 16 to 18 and it was not long before that that it was raised. I think that in the last 20 years we have practically doubled the number of judges in Scotland. On the last occasion we had a long and interesting debate in the Scottish Standing Committee on this matter and I ventured to oppose the Clause which made the provision.
In our proceedings in the Scottish Standing Committee on 18th June, 1963, I did an analysis of the number of judges, showing that England and Wales, with 10 times the population of Scotland, had only four times the number of judges. That works out at roughly the figure provided by my right hon. and learned Friend a short time ago. There is a small difference, because I included some judges that he omitted.
Clause 1 provides that the number of Lords of Appeal Ordinary shall be 11, and of these two are Scots. That is not a bad proportion. It was one-fifth, but now it is two out of 11. There are to be 13 ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, and 70 puisne judges of the High Court, making a total of 83 of these judges in England and Wales. Scotland has 20 judges who perform roughly the functions performed by the 83 in England and Wales.
I suggest that we ought to examine this matter and ask ourselves where we are going. There are now to be 97 county court judges in England and Wales, which are roughly equivalent to the 71 sheriffs and sheriffs substitute in Scotland.

Mr. David Weitzman: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that even among the judges in England we have some Scotsmen?

Mr. Willis: I am not surprised at that. I have had to leave my native territory of Norfolk because of the large number of Scots who have come there. I am a refugee from occupied territory. We have 71 sheriffs and sheriffs substitute com-

pared to 97 county court judges in England and Wales.
I agree with what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) about lay magistrates doing a great deal of work in England and Wales. I agree that the exact jurisdiction in the various courts is not exactly similar in the two countries, so that a true comparison cannot be made, but it is as near as we can get, and it seems to me that Scotland has rather a surfeit of judges in the various courts. If that is not so, it may be that England has too few, but it certainly raises an important question in connection with Clause 1 (1,c) which proposes to increase the number of judges of the Court of Session in Scotland from 18 to 20.
I was interested when my right hon. and learned Friend said that the Government were not proposing to increase the number of judges in Scotland right away, but only to take power to do so should the need arise. That is exactly what was said by the Under-Secretary on 18th June, 1963, but within three years the extra two had been appointed. We were told the reasons for this. One was that we had to take one judge to preside over the Scottish Law Commission. I accept that a judge was needed for that job. But the second reason is very interesting. We were told that Lord Wheatley had been acting as Chairman of the Royal Commission on Local Government. One member of the bench spoke to me about this and told me that Lord Wheatley had been holding meetings of the Royal Commission on Mondays but that the courts did not sit on Mondays in Scotland. I understand that only during the last month or so has Lord Wheatley extended the meetings of the Royal Commission to Tuesday.
I do not blame my right hon. and learned Friend, because he would not know it, but the Scottish Office should know it. The argument is therefore not a good one. The Royal Commission has been sitting for a long time and Lord Wheatley had not been missing the sittings on the bench as a result of his being Chairman of the Royal Commission.
It is time that something was done to consider the whole procedures of the courts in Scotland, especially the Court


of Sessions. Why should not the Court of Sessions sit on Mondays? I understand that the courts sit on Mondays in England. When I raised this point in 1963 the answer I was given was that the judges had to prepare judgments. I expressed the view that the judges in England surely had to do the same thing. Nevertheless, we have this Monday holiday.
At the other end of the week, in 1940, we used to have five judges in the outer house of the Court of Session sitting on Saturday mornings considering undefended divorce cases. Now, of the eight judges, only half sit on Saturday mornings for this purpose and the undefended divorce cases which used to be considered on Saturday mornings now go into Fridays as well. Some of us feel that divorce cases might be taken out of the Court of Session. It seems to me that some judges there have a three-and-a-half day week.
We ought to consider this fact before we start appointing more judges willy-nilly. If some of these judges are working for only three-and-a-half days a week, it is no wonder that there is concern in other walks of life. Workers are told that they must not ask for a reduction in their hours of work, and we have heard a lot about increasing productivity. Is it not about time that the Court of Session tried to increase its own productivity?
It has a very long holiday in the summer, although last year, very courageously, the Lord President of the Court of Session, after some persuasion, did reduce the holiday by a week. All the procedures of the Court of Session should be examined. I am not an expert but I am told by the experts that a great deal could be done within the Court of Session to put its own house in order to enable the business coming before it to be dealt with much more expeditiously.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: What my hon. Friend has been telling us about the Scottish situation is most interesting. Can he tell us whether the increase in the number of judges in Scotland, to which he has referred, has reduced the waiting time considerably in civil or criminal cases? Is it a question

of the number of judges or the court procedure which holds up cases?

Mr. Willis: I am told that it is probably a bit of both. I am not going to try to be specific about this, because I am not an expert. I had hoped that my right hon. and learned Friend would give us some information about the waiting list in the Court of Session, but we did not get it. I do not blame him, because this is a Scottish matter and we would not necessarily expect him to know about it, but we expect to hear something to justify the increase.
I raised this question on the last occasion it was debated, and voted against the increase. I pointed out that the inner house of the Court of Session did not sit at all during the summer term. I understand that they had one or two rate appeal cases or something similar to consider, but they did not sit. What is the position now? Have they sat during the Summer term since then? We should know. If they did not, this adds a few more weeks to their very long summer holidays. No one is against having holidays, but we should ask whether the Court of Session should not be looked at to see whether these two appointments are justified.
I have been interested in legal matters for many years. Although I am critical of the legal profession, it is not in a personal way, since many of my friends are in the profession and I live and mix with them. I have come to the conclusion that it is time that a Commission considered the legal structure, procedure and practices in Scotland. People talk about the sacred cow of gold, but this is the most sacred cow that I know in Scotland. I expect that the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands will defend his profession, but to an outsider—not only to me but to others—it seems time that this was done so that we can ensure that too many people are not engaged in this work.
I hope that we will have some information about these matters because, despite the appointment of one of the judges as Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, I am still not satisfied that extra judges are needed. I am confident that, when provision is made for them, every argument will be produced to appoint them. That is almost inevitable, but I


would need a much more satisfactory explanation before I would accept them.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: It may be appropriate for me to reply to some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). It is extraordinary to listen to him now after having listened for so long to him as Minister of State for Scotland. That calm and responsible approach which he showed as a Minister of the Crown seems, I regret to say, to have left him entirely, and he has reverted to the form for which, I am reliably told, he was well known in the so-called 13 wasted years of Conservative rule.
Some of what he said should not be allowed to pass. It is unfortunate that I have to do this, because it should come from the Government Front Bench. That is impossible, because the Lord Advocate is not a Member of the House, which was something about which the right hon. Gentleman complained bitterly during the Conservative Party's period of office—

Mr. Willis: The hon. and learned Gentleman was not here and must not get me wrong. I do not think that the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland should be Members of the House. I used to ask where they were only because the hon. and learned Gentleman's party thought that they should be Members, but could never get them in.

Mr. Wylie: That is an interesting observation and reflects the attitude of many people in the Labour Party and their antipathy towards the legal profession. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may feel, it is the Government's duty to have a Law Officer from Scotland in the House not only to explain, along the lines that he wanted, the machinery and implications of Government legislation, but also to answer authoritatively from the Front Bench the kind of allegations which the right hon. Gentleman made.
It is nonsense to say that the inner house of the Court of Session has not been sitting in the summer term. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman got that information. What he may have in mind is that the second division of the inner house has not been able to sit—

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing that the Scottish Law Officers should be Members of this House, but how can they be if the electors will not elect them?

Mr. Wylie: That is the difficulty which I can understand is very much in the Government's minds at the moment. I do not suppose that there is now the slightest possibility of getting a Scottish Law Officer into this House.
What the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East may have had in mind is that the second division of the Court of Session, which is the second division of the Appeal Court in Scotland, has not been able to sit as frequently as it would otherwise have done. The reason is that there is such a volume of work that the judges of the second division are doing outer house work in the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. This change in the volume of business in the Court of Session in recent years should go on record. The Court includes the Lands Valuation Appeal Court, and a great deal of its time is taken up on that work at the moment.
I have obtained some figures—not as many as I would like—which show that the number of cases begun in the Court of Session in 1959 was just over 3,000. It rose steadily year by year to 4,000 in 1963 and it is estimated that it will be 5,500 by the end of this year. In the Court of Criminal Appeal, the same inner house judges deal with both aspects of the work. The number of appeals considered in that court in 1959 was 191, and the estimate for the current year is at least 400. So the criminal appeal work has doubled in these last years.
I do not, unfortunately, have the figures for the number of High Court trials in Scotland at the moment, but I know the impact of the statistics which show a rise of 10 per cent. last year in the number of serious crimes of violence. All the signs are that that momentum is increasing this year. The High Court of Judiciary, particularly in Glasgow, is sitting more frequently and for longer periods than ever before.
The work of Her Majesty's judges in Scotland has never been so extensive. The work being done by the 18 judges sitting there—less the Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission and Lord Wheatley, who has, I imagine, more to do


than attend the meetings of the Commission—indicates that there may well be a need in the near future for additional appointments. I was interested to hear the Attorney-General say that there is no intention to make any more appointments, but I would have thought that, if things go on in the criminal field as they are, one additional appointment at least is likely to be necessary.
The figures given by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East about establishments to the court are not correct, I think. My understanding is that the number was raised to 15–16 in 1956 under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, to 17 in 1963 under the Criminal Justice Act, and up to 18 under the Resale Prices Act of 1964. There has been no extension in the judiciary in Scotland commensurate with the rise in the volume of work with which it has to deal.
If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the ratio of professional judges in Scotland to the population, in comparison with the ratio in England, may I remind him that we have always taken the view, rightly or wrongly, that justice is a matter better dealt with by qualified judges. The sheriff in Scotland performs a very important judicial rôle in the country. His jurisdiction is both civil and criminal. In that sense he is not comparable with the county court judge, because in addition to very wide civil jurisdiction, he also has very wide criminal jurisdiction. I should not like to see an extension of lay magistrates in Scotland at the expense of the professional judges who, on the whole, perform the essential requirements of the administration of justice in Scotland. I hope that the Attorney-General will bear in mind that although we have more judges in Scotland, they are not paid nearly as well as judges in England, and that has to be set against the figures which are given.
I welcome the Bill. I recollect that when we were considering the Judges' Remuneration Bill a few years ago, I suggested that there should be provision to increase the establishment in Scotland. That was rejected by the Government. The Attorney-General said there was no need for it. I am glad that the Government have come round to the view that

there is need for it. It certainly is called for, and I welcome the provision in the Bill.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: A long time ago in my boyhood I spent some years in Scotland, but that does not justify my entering into the argument between two Scotsmen, one on each side of the House. I think that the argument has been fairly well disposed of by what has been said by both of them.
Whatever may be the position in Scotland, the provisions in the Bill are well justified as far as England is concerned. Our judicial system is undoubtedly the best in the world, and our judges compare very favourably with the judges in any other judicial system in any other country. I echo what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) about the necessity to see that we have a high standard of judges. That is essential. We must preserve our tradition both in respect of standards and in respect of their independence. Judges must be completely independent of the executive. If we have the type of judge that we have today, and if we can get others of that kind appointed to the bench, then we shall do what is necessary to preserve the excellence of our judicial system.
I appreciate what the Attorney-General said about the backlog of civil cases, and I agree that it is essential to do everything possible to make the trial of these cases as expeditious as possible. But I have had a number of complaints from constituents about the delay that takes place in the hearing of criminal appeals. A comment was made about the delay in the hearing of a case in the Central Criminal Court, but there are many cases in which persons convicted of crimes have entered appeals but then have had to wait for many months to have their appeals heard. In many cases, it is said, there is a difficulty in obtaining the transcript, and we know that there is, in fact, such a difficulty. But energetic efforts ought to be made to deal with this type of case, in particular.
After all, although the suit is important to the individual in a civil case, he is at liberty, he is at home and he can pursue the matter and take advice. But many people convicted of crime have to


languish in prison awaiting appeal to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal. It is essential that those cases should be heard at the earliest possible moment. Clearly the appointment of additional judges will be a step in the right direction, but I hope that we shall not stop there arid that other steps will be taken to see that these trials are held as expeditiously as possible.
The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom made an important point about the necessity to see that our legislation is expressed in language which can be understood and is as simple as possible. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you recognise that this comment is not out of order, because it affects decisions by the courts. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall a case heard only last week in the Court of Appeal with respect to one of the regulations under the Industrial Injuries Act. A decision had been reached by the Industrial Injuries Compensation Board, but there had been an appeal to the divisional court, which had come to a certain decision, and the Court of Appeal had reversed the decision arrived at by the three judges in the divisional court.
In that appeal the Master of the Rolls and other judges expressed the view that they were dealing with a language which it was difficult for them to translate into effect. They commented on how much more difficult it was for any layman who was affected to understand what the regulations meant. That is not the only instance. There are cases under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, and particularly cases about Income Tax in which the language is couched in the most incomprehensible terms. This is not an idle point, and it has been raised before, but surely one the Government's primary considerations ought to be to see that wherever possible draftsmen are charged with the task of making the language as simple as it possibly can be, so that it can be understood by the person who has to obey the law. We have the canon that everybody is supposed to know the law. How can everyone possibly understand the law when it is couched in language that cannot be understood?
I note that there will be an increase in the number of county court judges,

which is certainly necessary. But may I remind the Attorney-General that when the legislation was before the House which transferred undefended divorce cases to the county courts, to be tried by county court judges, and when we were told of the saving in expenditure which would be made, I had the temerity to point out that we had forgotten the additional county court judges who would have to be appointed and that that expense ought to be taken into account. I am very tempted to say, "I told you so", but my criticism is very mild. This is a very necessary Measure and I agree that it should be commended to the House.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I should like to add my voice to the almost universal welcome which has been given by the House to this useful Measure. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I also describe it as a modest Measure—modest, that is, in the maximum increase which it permits in the numbers of the judiciary both in England and in Scotland. It is modest in that respect because, as the Attorney-General said, we in this country—certainly in England—fulfil justice on the bench with a remarkably small number of judges. Foreign lawyers are amazed that the great work of the courts in this country—work that has the admiration of most of our colleagues abroad—is conducted by such a small number of judges. That number has not been adequate in recent years, despite the immensely hard work which the judges have been doing.
The content of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was succinctly dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), who knows much more about this matter than I could pretend to know. When the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East criticised the amount of time spent by judges in actually sitting, I do not think that he realised the fact that the amount of time spent by them on the bench represents only a fraction of the time spent by them doing judicial work.
The conscientious judge, after a long day in court—at assize, the Old Bailey or on the county court bench—will spend many of his week-day evenings, if not all of them, reading his notes of the transactions in which he has been engaged and


looking through depositions and pleadings for the next day's work. And, of course, a substantial amount of his time is devoted to this task when he has reserved his judgment. The public do not altogether appreciate how much time is spent by judges outside their apparent working hours and how much time they spend on the business of society. I suggest that they spend as much time on these activities as the time spent by those who practice before them in getting up their cases.
As a practitioner, I urge hon. Members to realise the real hardship which is caused at present, particularly on circuit, because the lists are greatly overcrowded and because judges are frequently unable to get through them. Consider, first, criminal work. For a number of years it has frequently happened in many of our great circuit towns that the weight of criminal work is such that the judges, both those who attend to the civil business and the red judges, must do the criminal work, which means that a week or fortnight at an assize court may be spent dealing with criminal work alone while the civil work is left untouched. This grave administrative inconvenience means that the civil work must go over to the next assize or a commissioner must be sent down especially to attend to the civil business. It is not only the administrative inconvenience which is so grave. Anxiety is also caused to the litigants.
Only those who practise in the law, whether as solicitors or counsel, and who see litigants can appreciate how much their whole lives can be involved in cases until they are tried. It may be the case of a widow whose husband has been killed in a road or factory accident and who is looking for damages. It may be a man with a dispute with his neighbour about boundaries or a nuisance. His whole life becomes involved in this and there is no possibility of any friendly relationship subsisting until this litigation has been disposed of. It may be a small businessman who is suing for a disputed debt or a great company suing for many thousands of £s, perhaps against somebody whose whole future is bound up with the question "aye" or "no", must he pay this money?
When we consider assize work, people notice that their cases are listed at forth-

coming assizes and say, "At last"—perhaps after years of preparation, anxiety and negotiation—"my case will be tried. At the end of the next assize I am going to know where I stand". Then, because of the sheer weight of criminal work—which has been overwhelming assize courts for the last 10 years or so—at the end of the assize not only has that individual's case not been reached, but perhaps none of the civil work has been dealt with.
This state of affairs is a scandal in the administration of justice, a scandal for which the only explanation is the great increase in the amount of work that must be done and the shortage of judges able to deal with it. When discussing a matter of this kind it is important to see it in the human terms which are involved. If we look at it in those terms I have no doubt that Parliament will see how necessary is this modest Measure.
I will not go over the ground covered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) and the Attorney-General on the question of criminal appeals the number of which, partly as a result—I do not say this to be critical but because it is a fact—of the fact that the power of the former Court of Criminal Appeal to increase sentences is no longer a power which can be wielded by the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal has so vastly increased. The Attorney-General said that an estimated 5,900 appeals would have to be dealt with by the end of the year. It is clear that more judges are needed to do this work. The appalling increase in crime is eating into the judicial time available and into the deployment of the judicial manpower at our disposal.
We must also remember the great anxiety that exists in the minds of people who are waiting to go for trial at first instance in the criminal courts, in addition to that of those who may be advised to appeal and who are waiting while their appeals are delayed, perhaps in prison pending the result. For all these reasons, I associate myself, with feeling, with the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom, I support the remarks of the Attorney-General and I support the Bill.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I found little with


which to disagree in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). There seems to be a consensus that the main purpose of the Bill is sound, and I certainly support that view. If an increase has taken place in the amount of work to be transacted by the courts, the sensible thing is to increase the number of professional judges; and I do not see why we should fear doing that.
I was struck by the figures given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about the numbers of professional judges per 1 million of the population in various countries. I confess that I had not realised that the figure for this country was so much lower than that of some countries for which one has considerable respect. These figures put the whole question of judicial manpower in somewhat of a new light for me.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) I am interested in the question of Scottish judicial manpower and, in the main, I take the same view as my right hon. Friend I do not believe that the proportion of judges, particularly High Court judges, in England and Wales compared with Scotland has been properly explained.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) made a couple of points with which I would not disagree but which leave the essential point in this connection untouched. He said that the amount of work in the Scottish courts is increasing. One does not disagree with that. He also said that a lot of the work which in England and Wales could be done by lay magistrates and judges is done in Scotland by professional judges. One does not disagree with that. At the same time, not very much of the work of the Court of Session or of the High Court is done in either country by lay magistrates or judges.
The hon. and learned Member left untouched the point that in Scotland, with a population of one-tenth, using broad figures, that of England and Wales, there are about one-fifth as many judges. There may be a perfectly rational explanation for this position—I am not a suspicious-minded character in matters of this sort. I do not know the exact

jurisdiction of the various levels of the courts in England and Wales. I have a rough notion, as we all have, but I am not professionally knowledgeable on the subject, but one wants to know why there is this considerable discrepancy. We should be told before starting to provide for the appointment of additional High Court judges.
Before my right hon. Friend spoke I had thought of giving some comparative figures for England and Wales and for Scotland. I do not need to do that now, but in attempting, in a rough and ready layman's way, to get the information, I found the publications extremely confusing. The criminal stastistics for Scotland and for England and Wales seem to have only one thing in common in their arrangement—the title. Everything else seems to be arranged so as to be just about as unhelpful as possible for the ordinary lay inquirer. I will give just one instance before passing on to the main provisions of the Bill. In pages 18 and 19 of the English volume, the number of people brought to trial is shown as so many per million of the population. When I looked for the corresponding figure in the Scottish publication, I found the proportion as it relates to the cities in Scotland, to the towns in Scotland and to the countryside in Scotland, but no proportion as it relates to Scotland as a whole. Surely, in such simple matters the two Departments could get together to make it easier for the inquiring layman to get the information he seeks.
As I say, we need some explanation of the proportion of Scottish judges and English judges to the populations of the two countries, but another proportion I should like to draw to the attention of the House is the proportion of Scottish judges to members of the Scottish Bar. The number of practising members of the Scottish Bar is usually about 100 or 120, compared with a couple of thousand or so in England and Wales. We have a provision here to appoint up to 20 High Court judges, in addition to the 61 sheriff substitutes and others.
It is not healthy to have such a proportion of people holding public appointments, well paid even at the sheriff level—in spite of what the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands said—and very well paid at the High Court level, coming


from such a small Bar. Instead of increasing the possible number of appointees to the High Court Bench, I should like to make conditions. I am not a dictator, so I cannot do it; I can only put my point in debate. I should like some method that would ensure that if we increase the number of people at the Scottish Bar who get jobs of this importance and quality, we should also provide for a widening of the membership of the Scottish Bar. At present, it comprises too small a group to support in a healthy way this sort of superstructure.
The hon. and learned Gentleman commented on the Lord Advocate not being a Member of this House, and I rather gathered that his attitude was one of sorrow that the Lord Advocate is not a Member. As there are 5 million people in Scotland and 100 or 120 members of the Scottish Bar, it seems to me incomprehensible that anyone could argue that Scottish constituencies should, somehow, find a way of picking out one of that hundred or so for each Government in each Parliament. The old argument used to be that there should be a Lord Advocate and a Solicitor-General for Scotland in Parliament—and, presumably, two counterparts on the Opposition side. That is the height of nonsense. If a member of the Scottish Bar is selected, stands, and wins a seat, good luck to him; but the Scottish Bar should not be able to make any kind of claim, even of the most hypothetical sort, always to have a Member of the House from this tiny group. In this respect, the whole position in Scotland is quite different from that in England.
Not only is the Scottish Bar very small but it excludes people from membership on grounds of finance, and does so bluntly, opently and blatantly. One cannot find that in a similar profession anywhere else. I believe that the entrance payments to the English Bar are in themselves too high, but they are nothing compared with the entrance payments required of someone wishing to become a member of the Scottish Bar. I believe that £450 or more has to be paid, more or less on the nail, before a person can be called to the Scottish Bar. I regard that as completely hostile to the spirit of our society in these days. It excludes the very kind

of people one would like to see at the Bar.

Mr. Wylie: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. He is now making allegations about the Scottish Bar which are quite unfounded. Is it not perfectly clear that the substantial part of the money contribution for membership of the Bar is related to the widows' fund? One of the facts of practising at the Bar is that one cannot rely on any pension or superannuation. If one is sick or ill, one cannot earn anything, and if one leaves a widow she would be otherwise unprovided for. The greater part of the financial commitment in going to the Bar is that, if one leaves a widow, she has something to live on.

Mr. MacPherson: The hon. and learned Member makes my point for me. Here is a profession, all of whose members are in the ordinary National Insurance Scheme. Every one is protected in the same way as everyone else in the country. Yet the Scottish Bar says that unless a man joins its widows' pensions scheme he cannot enter the race for a judgeship.

Sir Douglas Glover: I hate to intervene in what is a lawyers' argument, but I must point out that all Members of Parliament get a pension as a result of a contribution that has nothing to do with the National Insurance Fund.

Mr. MacPherson: That is not quite the point. In fact, it is not the point at all. What I am saying is that members of the Scottish bench are appointed only from the Scottish Bar, just as, in England and Wales, judges are appointed from the English and Welsh Bar, but that, in order to enter oneself in the competition in Scotland, which may ultimately end in one's becoming a judge, one must buy one's way into the widows' pension scheme.
That seems to me utterly indefensible. Here we have a private society saying, "Unless you join our widows' pension scheme you are out of the running for a High Court judgeship". Successive Governments have accepted this, as do the present Government, but that attitude should cease. There should be a change. The financial qualifications should be removed. There are countries with perfectly respectable legal systems in which the qualification to plead in the courts is


the possession of a law degree or a similar qualification; but we add to that a completely unjustifiable financial qualification which, in the case of Scotland, is very much worse than in England and Wales.
Again, we still have not got rid of the system of political appointments to the Scottish bench. It is an unpleasant thing and it is not liked by the Scottish public. Governments from both sides do it and it is time it was stopped. I remember that long ago now, when Lord Shawcross was Attorney-General, he told the House that, in England and Wales, there was now no possible suggestion of political influence in appointment to the bench. We in Scotland are still far from that situation, but it is high time we reached it.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: I hope the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) will forgive me if I do not follow him across the Border. On reflection, I might add that he perhaps would not forgive me if I did. One notices that Scottish Members are increasingly touchy about English Members involving themselves in purely Scottish affairs, although the converse does not appear to be true to any great extent.
The first aspect of the Bill I wish to comment on is the provision to increase the number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to 11 from the present 9. The Attorney-General said that, at the moment, Commonwealth judges had to come to the rescue of the Privy Council Judicial Committee as at present comprised. I hope that, when the number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary is increased, we shall not, however, depart from the desirable practice of having members of Commonwealth senior benches sitting in the Privy Council here.
I have not very much experience of the Privy Council but on the two occasions I have appeared there I have been impressed by the calibre of the judges from the Commonwealth and on one occasion, when I was led by an Australian silk, I was immensely impressed by the standard of competence with which the case was presented to their lordships. I hope that we shall see an extension rather than a cutting back in the number

of Commonwealth judges who sit in the Privy Council, in spite of the fact that we shall not have the sheer necessity of their presence in future.
Secondly, the number of puisne judges of the High Court is to go up to 70. Most of the points arising from this have already been covered. The absolute necessity, in England at any rate, for a substantial increase in the number of judges to cope with the sheer volume of work arising from the crime wave and the great weight of litigation has been proved beyond peradventure. Right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out the delays involved both in bringing people to trial and in the hearing of appeals.
It is an administrative point but nevertheless very important that, because of the volume of the work judges have to contend with, there is a terrible tendency for clerks and others who arrange lists grossly to overload a list for a day or for any set period. I profoundly hope that the fact that, in due course, we shall have a greater number of judges will prevent this pernicious practice from continuing.
Earlier this year, I was in a case with a police force in an area in which I do not ordinarily practice. The police were constantly commenting on the hours they were having to waste in going to court and seeing their case adjourned—in one case, four times. They were not so much concerned about the waste of their time as about the impact of such a situation on the co-operation of the public in the enforcement of law and order.
I have encountered in my constituency and elsewhere people who have said, "I came forward as a witness in order to help the enforcement of law and order. I go to the magistrates' court and am kept waiting for a day and then have to go back again next day. Then the case goes to quarter sessions and I hang about for another day". Indeed, the case might go on to the next sessions, and sometimes a witness will have cause to go to court as many as four times and will still not be heard. This is intolerable and is having bad effects on the relationship of the public with the administration of justice.
I hope that strenuous measures will be taken to call the attention of those responsible for arranging lists to the


desirability that overloading should stop. It is a fear among those who arrange lists, presumably, that a judge may suddenly find himself without work for an afternoon. There can surely be very few instances indeed where a judge could have an afternoon off. The fact is that far too many cases are put into the lists. Cases are put in which, it is quite clear, have not the remotest chance of being reached in a day. There is even very often a refusal to mark a case with the statement that it will not be heard before a certain time in the day. With the increase in the number of judges, this situation should be able to be dealt with and I hope that it will be.
Overall, the Bill is clearly needed and I wish it well. I hope that we shall see that we do not have to have another Bill on this subject for a long time because one naturally hopes that the promising trends at the moment in some parts of the British Isles will go on and that we shall not have continuation of the crime wave which is so much responsible for the Bill.

5.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): Perhaps I may now make a short intervention, since the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) seems to have moved away from the Scottish aspects of the Bill. There has been a good deal of discussion about the Scottish points which hardly come within the short title of the Bill and I do not intend to pursue those. We have to be clear that this is, first of all, a precautionary measure. We are asking that we should have the right to appoint another two judges to the Court of Session. It is a useful precaution to take.
We have been asked why this should be provided for in a United Kingdom Bill—or English and Welsh Bill, if hon. Members prefer that. We are getting the best of both worlds because this process means that the increase will not later require the necessity of employing a Scottish Standing Committee or any other Scottish legislative process. Using an English Bill for a Scottish matter which is not so much of legislative importance but of administrative convenience is a useful thing to be able to do.

Mr. Willis: I do not blame my hon. Friend, but he was not present when I dealt with this subject. I am not criticising the appearance of the provision in the Bill, but the fact that the Scottish criminal provisions were split between this and the last Bill in a way which did not allow us to give proper and full consideration to them.

Mr. Buchan: I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is a matter of convenience that we should use the method now. Perhaps he will permit me to apologise for not being present when he spoke earlier. He will probably understand the reason; I came here as quickly as I could.
The need to take this precaution at this time has been questioned, but the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) partly dealt with that aspect. The number of cases is increasing. For instance, at the Court of Session in 1964 there were 3,900 cases, whereas by the beginning of 1967 there were already 3,828 pending. The number of cases at the Court of Session has risen from 3,930 in 1964 to an estimated 5,830 this year, a considerable increase. This reflects itself in the amount of time which is taken. When we increased the maximum number of judges in 1963–64, we managed to close the time gap between the closing of proof and the trial to about four months, but, because of the increasing number of cases, the time is again lengthening.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not my hon. Friend think that there should be more Scottish judges in the Judicial Committee and that the Bill, should provide for more Lords of Appeal in Ordinary? At present there are 11 of whom only two are Scottish, and yet Scottish law is quite different from English law. Surely there should be more Scottish judges among the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to deal with Scottish law.

Mr. Buchan: Much of what my hon. and learned Friend has said does not come within the province of the Bill, although there may be one or two points to be made later. Certainly those who are now being used are doing a very useful job.
Between 1960 and 1963 the number of cases at the Court of Session rose by


about 24 per cent. and there was a further rise of 25 per cent. between 1963 and 1966, a very considerable rise, including the number of contested cases which has risen by about a fifth between 1963 and 1966. I am not altogether sure that we should necessarily regard it as a bad thing that there is an increased ratio in the number of qualified judges in Scotland. It might be a mark of superior civilisation that we use professionally trained judges in our legal system and perhaps this is something in which we should take pleasure, even though, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has just reminded me, the last time we debated together was when I was sitting below the Gangway and he was advocating an increase in the salaries of judges at the time of the seamen's strike. However, with the increasing delay between proof and trial, there is a case for these provisions today.

Mr. Willis: To what extent could that be met if the courts met on Mondays?

Mr. Buchan: The argument may be that Monday is an extremely convenient time for solicitors and so on to meet their clients and to arrange the week's business. It may be convenient to have a weekday which is not a court day for this kind of procedure to be used. I should point out that they do meet on Saturday mornings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) will recognise that I cannot pursue all the points he made, but I have made notes of them. I was interested to hear him say that the number in the Bar might be too small to maintain the superstructure of the sheriffs in a proper way. He will understand if I do not answer that in detail.
As the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) has said, this is a modest proposal. It is introduced not because we intend immediately to increase the number of judges by two, but because we have seen the pressure on the courts increasing and believe it to be convenient at this moment, as a Bill is necessary for England and Wales, to use this opportunity to make provision for Scotland.

Mr. Hector Hughes: rose—

Mr. Buchan: I have given way to my hon. and learned Friend on more than one occasion, if not this afternoon. We

believe it to be a useful convenience to take this step at this time to have the power to increase the number of judges by only two in case their appointment should be necessary.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I put to him this important omission? There is nothing in the Bill to enable the number of sheriffs to be increased. As he knows, sheriffs in Scotland are minor judges, without using the expression in any derogatory sense, and many of them are overworked. Should not their number be greatly increased?

Mr. Buchan: Perhaps the number of sheriffs should be increased, but that is not part of the Bill and it is not necessary to make it so, because the number can be increased as we wish without these provisions.

5.56 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I welcome the Bill, although my welcome is only lukewarm. There have been several such Bills since I have been in the House and we seem to have increased the number of judges at the same rate as the increase in crime and litigation, so that over the years the injustice of waiting lists and delays appears to stay as grave. There does not seem to be any speeding of the administration of justice.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said that our system of justice was the finest in the world. It is because of the quality of those who administer it, but to be justice, justice must be not only neutral and unbiased, but swift, and there is great injustice all over the United Kingdom because of the delay which still occurs.
As a layman I am often horrified when I pick up my newspaper and read that some poor woman who has lost her husband in a motoring accident in 1962 has just had her case settled five years later, having to wait for five years when she has not known whether she would get any damages. How she has lived in the intervening period heaven only knows. Such a case should be cleared through the courts much more quickly than now appears to happen.
I was much impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) said about witnesses. As a layman I find that an enormous number of people do their utmost not to get involved in criminal or even civil cases, knowing that they may be involved in the loss of an enormous amount of time. They are called to court and then sent away and brought back again. All this reduces the quality of the administration of justice. If the public becomes actually hostile to the working of the machinery, some cases will inevitably go the wrong way because the witness who might have given evidence which would have altered the result will smartly get out of the way. There is no doubt that many people get out of the way if they see a motoring accident, because they know how much time it will cost them if they get involved.
Their friends, who have been involved as witnesses, tell them that they have had to go to a court of summary jurisdiction and then they found that they were expected to be called on a Tuesday, but they were not called until the Wednesday. Then there was a delay and they were called again, and they lost a great deal of time, temper and money. Therefore, they do not want to get themselves involved if they can avoid it.
Will this increase cut down the delay so that criminals on appeal will have their appeals heard almost by return? If a person is found not guilty on appeal it is not much consolation if he has been in prison for perhaps six weeks beforehand. Nothing can repay him for that. If it is a civil case, then I understand that all too frequently, particularly at assizes, it may be put off. It may be pending and then pushed back again several times. People in that position are, I am sure, not prepared to accede to the view of the lawyers in this House that our form of civil and criminal justice is the finest in the world.
They say that they have been messed about, have had to wait an unduly long time before their case was settled, that they have been left in anguish, doubt and worry for an excessive period of time. This is an entirely non-party matter and I hope that the Government will look at it because we cannot have justice without speed.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: While I support this Bill, it does not create sufficient new judges for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). These new judges are to meet existing demands, yet in England we have said for years that there should be a change in our priorities, a change in favour of the witness, the juryman, the police officer, so that they do not have to wait, even if the judges do.
At the moment, such is the pressure on the judiciary that some of them give the impression that speed is a distinct factor in the performing of justice. If one could get enough judges, so that getting through a load of work was not so urgent and burdensome, then judges would become more patient and justice would more often be seen to be done. The trouble with a proposition of that kind, that one should create far more than seven new High Court judges in England and Wales, is that more and more we are squeezing courts into buildings which can no longer take them.
It is the case of the quart and pint pot. It is easier to create new judges than to create new courts in which they can operate. I hope that the Government are giving serious consideration to ensuring that in places like Leeds and Bradford, for example, these new judges will have decent accommodation and that jurymen and witnesses will be given proper facilities while they are waiting. I trust that the Government are moving towards a day when there will be days fixed for cases, and if a case settles on the doorstep of the court it will not be regarded as too bad that the judge has nothing to do that day, providing that many other people are not prevented from doing their work.
When the time comes to appoint these new High Court judges, I hope that consideration will be given to appointing further women judges. At present there is only one High Court judge to whom members of the Bar say "My lady"—Mrs. Justice Lane. She was an inspired appointment. She has won golden opinions everywhere and she combines courtesy with erudition and charm. If there are other women lawyers in this country of that stamp it should not be long before they are given preference. Mrs. Justice Lane's appointment must


have been a very great encouragement to the champions of women's rights.
I hope, too, that an increase in the number of judges will result in some consideration being given to the despatch of High Court judges to the provinces during the vacation in order to deal with urgent matters. At the moment High Court work stops for a very long time in the summer. It should not always be necessary to go to the vacation judge in London on urgent matters. When court buildings are not so intensively used, it ought to be possible to send judges out to the provinces to hear business which cannot easily wait.
I would have liked to have seen some provision in the Bill about stipendiary magistrates. The situation at present is anomalous because an authority such as Hull decides that it cannot do without a stipendiary magistrate, while an authority like Bradford decides that it can. The machinery of justice should be uniform throughout the country. If it is necessary to have a stipendiary magistrate in Hull, to have the benefit of a trained legal mind to assist the lay magistracy and to deal with complex matters, it must also be appropriate and necessary in Bradford.
On the other hand, if it is not so necessary then they are wasting their money in Hull. I would like to see provision in some Measure, possibly this Bill, for all towns with a population of. say, more than 200,000 to be obliged to appoint a stipendiary magistrate who would have the effect of lifting the level of the local lay justices by being available to them for advice and who would be more at ease in the despatch and dispensation of justice in the more complex cases.
Everyone has agreed about the high standard of the British judiciary, and I heartily agree with all that has been said. It is true that most British judges are taken from the ranks of the recorders. The office of recordership is one in which most British judges obtain experience in the work of the Bench. One does not know what the Beeching Committee will report, but it would be a sad day for England, and the English judiciary if the office of recorder was to be abolished as a result of any of the Committee's recommendations, so that in future people

would be appointed direct from practice at the Bar to the High Court.
This would mean that there was no interim period of practice and training when those who are good on the Bench, who have shown that they can manage well and have the right cast of mind and disposition are chosen, while others have shown themselves to be not suitable. I trust that it will not be long before the Government feel that there is enough accommodation, enough money and enough talent to appoint the other judges so that justice can be speedier and better.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I am not sure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) appears to be, that an increase in the number of judges will speed up the administration of justice. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) dealt with this point. He said that, although we had increased the number of judges in the past, the increase only kept pace with the increase in litigation and crime, so that there was more work and more judges. The hon. Gentleman said that he gave the Bill a mixed reception. So do I.
The Title of the Bill, the Administration of Justice Bill, gives one the impression that it is an important and grandiose Measure which will modernise the machinery in our courts. It will do no such thing. The Title of the Bill should be something like "The Provision of Additional Judges Bill", because that is all that it is.
Are we right in tackling the matter in this way? What would we say of industrialists—the people to whom we are preaching and saying that they must modernise and streamline their machinery—if they adopted the method which we have adopted in this Bill? In effect, what we are saying in the Bill is that there is a backlog of work and that the work is increasing in complexity and amount. Two years ago, we increased the remuneration of judges. This year, we are increasing the number of judges. If an industrialist, faced with a backlog of work, were to employ these methods and merely increased prices and tried to get more staff without looking at the methods of his establishment, we should criticise him very severely.
Many of the things which my colleagues from Scotland said earlier are very apposite to this argument. Is the machinery of our courts satisfactory? Is that what is causing a lot of the delay and backlog of work—not only the number of judges but the inadequacy of the archaic machinery? An additional 22 judges are to be appointed. From where will they be recruited? I will not deal with the Scottish position because it was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson). But the position in England and Wales basically is no different from the position in Scotland. The judges will be recruited, not from a Bar which consists of 2,239 practising barristers, but from a very much narrower field. A judge needs to be learned in the law, but it is equally if not more important that he should be learned in life. I am aware that the Bench and our judicial system could be considerably improved if we broadened the base of recruitment.
Apart from the 2,239 practising barristers, there are 21,672 practising solicitors of which, I should inform the House, I am one. I have not the slightest wish to be considered for a judicial appointment, but among their number there are many who would make most eminent county court and High Court judges. I see no reason why they should not make suitable and eminent judges of the Court of Appeal, since they are learned in life—perhaps more learned than those in the narrow and restricted field from which judges are now drawn—because, by the nature of their profession, they come directly into contact with life.
When one of the workmen to whom reference has been made goes before a High Court judge in a compensation claim—probably the most important event in his life; his whole future life probably depends on it—it is not a great deal of consolation to him, nor to the employer defendant, to know that the judge trying the case might never have been in a factory. That is possible under the existing system.
The first thing which the Bill should have done was to broaden the base from which our judges are recruited. Particularly, it should have included the 21,000 solicitors. I am advocating that not just because they are solicitors, but because

they have legal knowledge. Indeed, like my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs I go further and say, "legal degrees".
The remoteness of the Bench is often criticised in films and on the radio. The comedian's idea of the Bench is certainly not true. But the public are very perspicacious when it comes to an institution which has made itself remote from ordinary life. There are jokes about judicial ignorance. The sort of thing which happens in court when a learned judge leans forward, full of judicial ignorance, and says, "Who or what is Twiggy?" may get a quick laugh, but it emphasises the remoteness of the Bench in the public mind from ordinary every day life. Whether it is true or not, that is the public's impression of the Bench.

Sir P. Rawlinson: If that is a valid argument, what would the hon. Gentleman say was the public's view of Members of Parliament?

Mr. Oakes: It is true that our image is somewhat tarnished. The Government are trying to do something about it by reforming this institution and the other place in this Session and by actively trying to make this a more modern, more alert and more alive place. All that I ask is that we pay some attention to bringing the courts as well as ourselves up to date and not merely increase the number of judges available to try cases.
There is a lot of restrictive practices in the courts. There are restrictive practices when it comes to the intake of the Bench. I do not think that there is any doubt that there are many restrictive practices in the courts. They make Mr. Jack Dash look like a bungling amateur, and yet we are permitting them to continue and carrying them on in this Bill by increasing the number of judges.
I should like to put a few questions about the system of courts which no doubt will be considered by the Beeching Committee and to ask whether some of the things which I propose to mention are delaying cases. Is the circuit system desirable, modern and efficient in 1967? Because in Tudor times the King's judges set off from London on horse and went into the fresh air of the provinces for long periods, should we continue the tradition of assize courts, of courts of


oyer and terminer and general gaol delivery? When Manchester is only just over two hours by rail away from London, would it not be better, as the Law Society suggested in its recommendations, which no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has seen, to have area courts and district courts?
What about vacations? Is it right in the modern age for courts to shut down altogether throughout the country for long periods? What about modern buildings? Court rooms today often look no different from court rooms of 100 or 200 years ago. Such elementary inventions as the telephone have not reached the court rooms. Messengers travel backwards and forwards, and delay is caused as a result.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) rightly stressed the importance of the judicial system revolving round the litigant and the layman instead of round the judge. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that witnesses, litigants, solicitors—the whole apparatus of law on both sides—can be kept in a court room for several days waiting for a case to be heard in case the learned judge finds himself with half an hour in which he has nothing to do. It is quite wrong that the court should revolve in that way around the judge. It will not be cured by appointing more judges. It may be cured if we look at the assize system, the long vacation and the whole of the processes of the court, whereby a lot must be done in a very little time and, consequently, everybody must be there in case one precious moment of that time will be lost.
The Bill is a modest one. It is too modest. I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had included a lot of those other measures and reforms which are sorely needed by the courts. It is an easy way to deal with things to say that we will increase the number of judges and hope that that will solve the problem. I do not think that it will. In the Bill, instead of the reforming zeal which, I know, my right hon. and learned Friend has, there is what was referred to in the House yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), the dead hand of Whitehall, and the dead hand of Whitehall has behind it here the

dead weight of the prejudice of centuries in the legal profession.
Although my right hon. and learned Friend obviously cannot promise it to us today in the Bill, I hope that in the very near future, in this Session, certainly within months of receiving the report of the Beeching Commission, something will be done to bring our courts up to date, as we are endeavouring to bring this House up to date.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: In listening to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) has said about the narrow field from which the judiciary is drawn, I wondered whether I should, perhaps, commence my remarks by declaring an interest. Having said that, however, I am bound to say that I agree with a great deal of what he said. I hope that in due course, when the debate is over, he will reward me by telling me who or what is Twiggy.
It is fashionable in the course of these debates for every speaker to express almost at the outset of his remarks his respect for the judiciary, and I would not wish to fall behind in that. I certainly have a great respect for the intellectual calibre of those who are appointed to the Bench. I would not presume to go so far as to say that our judiciary is the best in the world; I do not know enough about other judiciaries to be able to make that claim. I have met members of judiciaries of other countries of Europe, the United States and a number of countries throughout the world whose judiciary is of a very high standard.
One thing that certainly has impressed me very much, however—and this arises largely from what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West has said—is that the very fact that our judiciary is confined to a relatively narrow section of the community, and perhaps, still more, the general narrowness of the education which is required to go to the Bar and thence to the Bench, is a factor which inhibits the breadth of the knowledge of life and the scope of experience of those who administer justice.
In particular, I would very much hope to see a great extension in our legal education system of the field which is studied by prospective lawyers, so that it


is not, as so often happens today, and certainly in the days when I was studying law, confined purely to law and very closely allied matters, but embraces the much wider field of sociology and social affairs, as it does in some of our newer universities. I am quite certain that without a knowledge of the world and of the way the world works and ordinary people think, it is impossible to do proper justice on the bench.
A subject which has been much canvassed, on both sides of the House, is the convenience for litigants of the present system. I agree very much with my hon. Friend that it is not enough to do what the Bill does and simply to increase the number of judges, welcome and necessary though that may be. I welcome, incidentally, the provisions of Clause 1 (2), as a result of which I hope that when we find in the future that there is need for an increase in the number of judges, it will not be necessary every time to bring legislation before both Houses of Parliament. It has always seemed to me that that is a waste of time of the House.
When one speaks about the convenience of litigants and the system as a whole, whatever we may say about the ability of the judiciary, the fact is that our system has a musty smell about it. In particular, the point has been made, and I emphasise it as strongly as I can, that the system of the courts gives first priority to judicial time and only second priority to the time of witnesses and of those who are to take part in litigation. I do not see why that should be essential. I know that we have gone some way towards meeting that criticism by our system of fixed dates in the courts. It seems to me, however, that that goes only part of the way towards meeting the criticism.
I sometimes practise in the Lands Tribunal and the planning world, where in each case dates are fixed for every proceeding, whether before the Lands Tribunal or before an inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government or of some other Ministry, as a result of which it is possible for people to know precisely when their case will be heard and to make the necessary arrangements with the minimum of inconvenience to all concerned. Bearing in mind particularly the immense number of planning appeals, for example, which take place

in the course of a year—they may not be as numerous as actions in the courts, but they are still an immense number—I find it difficult to understand why a similar system cannot be introduced in the courts. It seems to me that the only matter which is standing in our way is the unwillingness of successive Governments to find the necessary finances to enable that to be done. I hope at least that when this debate is closed, we will hear of a firm intention on the part of the Government to move as rapidly as possible in that direction, even if it cannot be accomplished all at once.
As the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) pointed out, that also affects very largely the delay in bringing cases to trial. The hon. Member quoted an instance of a case which had been hanging fire for five years. It is only fair to point out that delays of that kind are much more likely to be delays in negotiation and in the processes of preparation than to be caused by the mechanism of the courts. None the less, there are considerable delays caused by the very mechanism of the courts. There is certainly extraordinary delay even in the county courts, where a case will go on, will be unfinished, will be adjourned for a matter of months, will then be unfinished again, and adjourned for a matter of months again. I can remember a case in my own experience when practising in those courts. It was a year from the day on which the case was opened to the day on which the judge gave his judgment, because of a series of adjournments of this kind.
It is quite impossible for the facts to be properly appreciated and assimilated if there is that kind of system, and it is equally impossible, in my judgment at any rate, for witnesses to be sure of their facts if they are to have to give evidence about them, not within weeks or months of the occurrence of the event, but, very often, three or four or even five years afterwards. How in the world can people possibly give an accurate account of a road accident, for example, many years after it has taken place? The greater the delays of that kind which occur the more litigation becomes a matter of pure chance and a matter of whose memory appears to be the better, rather than a matter of the justice of the case.
One of my hon. Friends from a Scottish constituency referred to the narrowness of the field of the Scottish Bar from which the Scottish Bench is drawn. I would not like to follow him into that country, but it brings me back to a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West made about the English Bar. The mustiness of which I spoke about the judicial system undoubtedly affects the legal profession also. I think some steps have been taken lately to try to remove some of that mustiness, but it always seems to me that there is from time to time a burst of enthusiasm, particularly when some particular practice becomes a subject of public scrutiny, and then the enthusiasm gradually dies down and very little is done. Yesterday morning their Lordships' House in their judicial capacity removed a small part of one of the restrictive practices which affect the profession of the Bar, and there are many that affect both branches of the legal profession. It was a very small part, and, in my view, in doing so, they have created more anomalies than they removed.
I myself am very pleased that the Government have thought it right to refer to the Monopolies Commission the structure of the legal profession, and I hope that there will be a very wide-ranging inquiry into that structure in order to remove some of that mustiness, but the mustiness applies not only to the profession, it applies very much to the structure of the courts and the system of the courts.
I hope that the Beeching Committee will produce some sort of regional system, though I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) that it would be a great pity if that produced a system of entirely full-time, permanent criminal judges, because, quite frankly, I think that whatever may he said about the excellence of our judiciary generally it does not apply to anything like the same extent to the full-time criminal judges. I think that it is a bad thing to have to rely too much upon them, and I hope, therefore, that the regional structure which I foresee will be accompanied by a continuation in some form or another of the part-time criminal judge judicial system which gives the experience my hon. Friend has referred to.
That leads me to another form of experience which it seems to me High Court

judges could have. I have never understood why we are so reluctant to promote county court judges to the High Court bench. We do it occasionally. I think the answer is that there is a certain dilemma about this. The dilemma is that so long as we promote very few county court judges to the High Court bench the cream of the profession will not opt to become county court judges, and because the cream of the profession does not opt to become county court judges there fore there will not be sufficient excellent county court judges to promote to the High Court bench. How we get out of that diemma is very difficult to see, but I would suggest we could get out of it if a bold, enlightened Lord Chancellor, such as, I believe, we have today, were to make an announcement that as a matter of policy in the future there will be much more promotion from the county court bench to the High Court bench.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not a complete dilemma? There have been in recent years several instances of county court judges promoted to the High Court bench and they proved very successful judges.

Mr. Silkin: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. I did say that there had been one or two instances of them, and the very fact that they have proved, as my hon. and learned Friend said, highly successful seems only to reinforce the point I made.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Hear, hear.

Mr. Silkin: What I am saying is that there has been a certain slowness—almost cowardice—about this process, which seems to me to be the result of the dilemma I have referred to. I hope that we shall be able to break through that dilemma by making it clear that in the future that process will be much accelerated.
Finally I want to take very briefly two aspects of the court system. They have not been mentioned yet. First of all, the way the courts are, broadly, organised, which is a relic of many many years past—the present division in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division and the other Divisions of the High Court.
We are likely to see in the near future, hope, a major, radical reform in legislation on many branches of the law affecting the family, and I would like to see a genuine family court, integrated from top to bottom, growing up, being established, and separate from those utterly irrelevant branches of the law which are at present joined to it, in one case the law affecting wills and shipping, and in the other case the law affecting companies, trusts and mortgages Let us have a system of experts in the family. I would certainly see within such a family court a good deal of scope for the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East about increasing the number of women judges.
The other point on structure I would like to make is this. I accept entirely the need for an increase in the number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary so long as we have our three-tier system, but is the three-tier system really necessary still today? In many countries there is a single appellate court which seems to work as a system perfectly well. I entirely agree that many of the judgments which are handed down by their Lordships are of very great value and that they form an essential part of the law of the land. But is this really a necessary way of accomplishing that objective? Is it not possible, for example, to have a single appellate court in which, where matters of really grave importance to the law are involved, an enlarged court hears the appeal? Within the Court of Appeal, if that system were introduced, necessarily there would be people of the very high quality which is found among those who are at present Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The Court of Appeal, therefore, would be of a higher standard and a more experienced court than it is today, and one would hope that the occasions for regarding its decisions as wrong would be that much reduced.
I hope, again, that that is a matter which will be considered very seriously. These are questions involving the whole structure of our court system, and, whilst this is a modest and necessary Bill, it must not be thought that, in passing it, these much graver matters should be overlooked. Within the confines of this Parliament, I hope that we shall have the necessary investigation and announce-

ments enabling us to know that, in the future, the system will be radically changed and modernised.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: At this late stage in the debate, I intend to limit my remarks to that part of the Bill which makes provision for an increase in the number of judges in Northern Ireland from two to four. My right hon. and learned Friend's remarks seem to indicate that it is the intention of the Government to fill the two vacancies immediately, but I wondered if it was intended to appoint one immediately and the other at some time in the future. The Attorney-General said that there was an urgent need for new judges in Northern Ireland, which would seem to indicate that there are about to be two more appointed.

The Attorney-General: If I can help my hon. Friend, it is the intention to appoint one at once, as soon as the Bill goes through.

Mr. Fitt: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. I had intended to focus attention on the appointment of these two judges from the standpoint that the vacancies should be filled only by men of experience and understanding and with the required qualifications. I have been helped considerably in my attitude by the opening remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), in the course of which he called for the same thing.
In the past, appointments to the High Court in Northern Ireland have not occurred very frequently, because judges in that court seem to be addicted with longevity. It would appear that, when appointments have been made in the past, consultation has taken place with the Northern Ireland authorities before making them. I was wondering if that is the position now, or if the appointment is to be made by the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom.
If consultations have to take place with the Northern Ireland authorities, I and many other people in Northern Ireland will be filled with a certain amount of apprehension. We know that, in recent months particularly, there has been great controversy in Northern Ireland about the


filling of legal appointments. If a decision is to be taken in the immediate future, I hope that it will be taken by the Lord Chancellor here after he has been made aware of all the facts and of the persons suitable to fill the appointments.
Once a judge has been appointed, in recent times the tendency has been for him to fill the office for a number of years. If a mistake is made in the original appointment, it may be that we shall have to live with it for many years.
Noticing that the proposed legislation calls for an Amendment to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, I have listened to the debate with care. I have heard that there has been an increase in the number of judges in Scotland and England on numerous occasions, but that this is the first time since 1920 that a proposal has been put forward for an increase in the number of judges in Northern Ireland. Having spoken to many members of the legal profession in Northern Ireland, it is clear that there is a need for more judges. Like many other parts of the United Kingdom and of the world, Northern Ireland has experienced a recent upsurge in crime and in civil cases. While I am no legal luminary or expert on the legal profession, I a m reliably informed that there is a serious backlog of cases waiting to be heard in Northern Ireland.
However, I want to seek a specific assurance from the Attorney-General that, when this appointment is being made, it will be made in the full knowledge that, since the setting up of the State of Northern Ireland, all legal appointments under the control of the Northern Ireland Government have caused considerable controversy because there has been a decided political slant to each one of them. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend has received a circular from many eminent members of the legal profession in Northern Ireland protesting at the political slant which appears to have activated appointments in the profession in. Northern Ireland.
I agree with the appointment which is about to be made, but I ask the Attorney-General to ensure that the person appointed to fill the vacancy is chosen on the grounds of suitability, experience and qualification, and that political considerations play no part in the choice.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I join with others in welcoming the Bill and with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in saying that there is undoubtedly a need for another judge to be appointed immediately in Northern Ireland. The Government are wise to make provision in this legislation for the appointment of a second judge at a later date if that is found to be necessary.
There are one or two brief remarks which I want to make about the hon. Gentleman's speech, but first I congratulate him on becoming more accustomed to keeping within the rules of order of the House, about which I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, are as glad as I am. I do not think the hon. Gentleman would disagree that the judges who have been appointed by the Westminster Government have always been appointed on merit. Looking through the list of present and past judges, I do not think that he would disagree with me on that.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Northern Ireland authorities were consulted about appointments. As he rightly pointed out, they are essentially a matter for the Lord Chancellor. I do not know the answer, but I should have thought that in any such appointment the Lord Chancellor should properly consult the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. I would have thought that would be automatic. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not disagree with me on that, either.
The hon. Gentleman made the charge that all the legal appointments under the control of the Northern Ireland Government had been made on a political basis—

Mr. Fitt: Very much so.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I should be out of order if I attempted to answer that charge in great detail, but if I could have your indulgence for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that, of the six appointments since 1954, it is true that three were Unionist Members of Parliament, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will quarrel with me if I said that they all had very extensive practices at the Bar which merited their appointments.
There will be very few members of the Bar of any political viewpoint who would suggest that appointments to the county court bench are not strictly on merit. Two of the six appointments were of Roman Catholics. They were appointed on merit and not on political grounds.

Mr. Fitt: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I deliberately did not go into the question of appointments. I referred to them generally. Is it right that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) should have the opportunity, because if he wants to read the scripts and the record of Northern Ireland I can bring him in one within five minutes.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Member for Belfast, West made the accusation without substantiating it. I hope I am not trespassing unduly on the time of the House if in a few sentences I put the record right and let the facts speak for themselves.

Mr. Fitt: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I was addressed on a point of order. I am grateful for the help of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) in dealing with it, but the point of order was raised with Mr. Speaker.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) for raising a point of order at all. His speech was entirely in order. If the hon. Member for Belfast, North reflects on any of the magistrates or any of the judges he will be out of order. It is not out of order, however, to compliment them.

Mr. Stratton Mills: To recap my thoughts, I had said that of the six county court judges appointed since 1954 three were formerly Unionist Members of Parliament, two were Roman Catholics and one was strictly non-political. I think that the last one had been adopted as a Liberal candidate for an English seat in the 1930s, but I hope that is no reflection on anyone, Mr. Speaker.
This Bill is to be welcomed. I hope that the appointment of the new High Court judge can be made soon, because there is much urgent work to be done. I welcome the Bill.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I want to make one point about Clause 1(1), which provides:
The maximum number—
(a) of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary shall be eleven …
It has no limitation or indication about the qualifications of their Lordships, and I remind the House that they are drawn from every country in the British Commonwealth. That means that each is trained in a different system of law. The bases of the various laws in the various countries are similar, being based on the English system of law, except for Scotland. They are most distinguished judges; they are probably the most distinguished in the world.
Being drawn from the widest fields, judges are learned in a very wide way, and they are one of the most respected tribunals in the law. They are learned in the law of every country from which they come, but the law of each of those countries is different. While it is based upon English law, by the nature of the exigencies of each country and the Statutes passed to deal with them, each system of law in the course of years acquires a difference. Therefore, the judges, being human, cannot be versed in every system of law, a fortiori in Scotland, because Scottish law is quite unlike English law.
Scottish law is not based on English law; it is based on Roman Law—the Institutes of Justinian. But not only that difference occurs. There is the difference which arises from exigencies and the history of Scotland, so Scottish law is very different from English law. Yet the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who are 11 in number—

The Attorney-General: Nine in number.

Mr. Hughes: —have only two Scottish lawyers among them. Is it reasonable that they can adjudicate upon Scottish law and is it reasonable that Scottish litigants have to come from Scotland to have their appeals heard by that tribunal?
It is a very august and respected tribunal, and when there are Scottish cases one or perhaps both of the Scottish law lords take part in their adjudication. But my point is that two out of 11 is not enough.

The Attorney-General: It is nine at the moment.

Mr. Hughes: Yes. My point is that there should be more Scottish judges amongst them. Yet Clause 1 makes no provision about the qualifications of the judges who will be so appointed. The two who adjudicate at present are very distinguished judges. Lord Reid was for many years a Member of this House, and Lord Guest served for many years on the Scottish Bench prior to becoming a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
My point briefly is that this august and learned tribunal would be greatly enriched if it had more Scottish lawyers. The Clause should provide some conditions which would enable more Scottish judges to be appointed Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. G. B. H. Currie: I make a very brief intervention on this most important matter, following on one or two points which have been made in the course of the debate.
First, I congratulate the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, but I want to go back to what was said about the desirability of the wording of the Statute from the start being as simple as possible so that there should be the least possible difficulty in a court coming to a decision about the meaning of it.
I congratulate the Attorney-General on the extremely simple wording of this Bill. It is admirable. It does everything that is needed, and it does it in one and a half short pages. The Bill makes very profound alterations in the size of the judiciary throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, but it is done, in this very brief space of print.
There is one matter about which I am not sure. Clause 1(d) deals with the maximum number of judges in Northern Ireland. It provides,
The maximum number—
(d) in Northern Ireland, of puisne judges of the High Court shall be four.
When one turns to subsection (6), that provides:
In paragraph 1(1) of Part II of Schedule 7 to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 (which provides that the High Court in Northern Ireland shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and two puisne judges),

after the word 'and' there shall be inserted the words 'not less than'.
Which Statute will govern the number of judges to be appointed? Will it be the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, in which case there will be freedom to appoint any number, provided that it is not less than four, or will it be this Bill, which says that in Northern Ireland
puisne judges of the High Court shall be four"?
It is only a drafting point, but it is one on which something might turn in the years ahead.
I think that most of us in the House would wish to offer our congratulations to the judiciary in Northern Ireland. Consisting as it does of so few members, it has carried out its circuit duties as well as its other duties in the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast. It really is quite remarkable that there have been only three judges, the Lord Chief Justice and two puisne judges, and yet the population of Northern Ireland now totals nearly 1½ million. These judges have to travel to assize towns in addition to their other work, and I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) said about their work.
Looking back over the years, it is obvious that appointments to the High Court Bench in Northern Ireland have been made purely on merit. I believe that Mr. Justice Sheil would certainly not have been classified as a member of the Unionist Party. He is one of our most distinguished judges.
I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to find some way, or recommend some way, of cutting down the great delays which occur in the courts because of the necessity to fill the civil lists. One knows that the main background to this is the fact that so many settlements of civil actions take place at the court door itself. It is extremely irritating for parties, for their witnesses, and, if I may say so after 35 years' practice, for counsel, too, to have to go to court, perhaps day after day, because the list has not collapsed and the case in which one is concerned has not been reached.
I do not see how one can avoid the difficulty of long lists. It is a matter


which must receive attention, and I tend to agree with what has been said today, that it would perhaps be better for a distinguished judge to have to wait for a few hours before another case comes on for trial than to keep a large section of the public, witnesses, parties, counsel, expert witnesses, and so on, waiting in court day after day for a trial to start.
I conclude by asking the Attorney-General to let me have replies, if he can, to the questions which I have asked.

7.5 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I hope that I may have the leave of the House to reply to the matters which have been raised during this valuable and helpful debate.
The state of justice, the speed with which cases are brought to trial, and the fairness and correctness of the conclusions, depend, as we have heard traversed during this debate, largely on three things—the the state of the law itself, the efficiency of its administration, and the numerical strength and quality of those who man the courts, the last named being to some extent very much involved in the second consideration.
The Bill is confined to the last aspect. namely, the strength of the judiciary but the fact that that problem has been isolated in the Bill as a necessary and urgent matter that can be dealt with in this limited way in no way reflects any lack of concern on the part of the Government in the other two major factors relating to justice, the law itself, and the structure and quality of its administration, and I take pride in belonging to an Administration which has introduced the Law Commission as the most significant step towards reforming the law which the history of our law has ever known. Indeed, as one hon. Member said, the remarkable thing is that we have existed for the last 700 years without the Law Commission.
Apart from the work of the Law Commission itself, we are in an exciting era of law reform, a process with which various commissions have been concerned since before this Administration came in. The Law Reform Commission, the Committee dealing with reforms in the civil law, and the work of special committees which have been set up, show that there is a great ferment in the law, and law

reform has certainly become a major aspect of the life of those concerned with the law. I am happy to think that the impetus, happily, comes largely from lawyers themselves, and it is gratifying and right that that should be so.
With regard to the administration of justice, as I said in opening the debate, the work of the Beeching Commission, the work of other bodies which are concerned with various problems of administration, such as the Payne Committee on the enforcement of judgment debts, and the work which the Law Commission is doing in matters related to the administration of justice, the work of various other committees, is continuing actively, and we await, almost with impatience, the outcome of the quite fundamental review which is being made of our present system of administering justice.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) spoke of the musty smell that lies around the courts, and he thinks, also the professions. A good deal of the mustiness has been, and is being, shaken, and the process will continue. One of the problems facing us is the sheer and total inadequacy of court buildings. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in the Chamber. I was pleased to be present with him at the opening of the new law courts at Worthing. They are a splendid indication of the sort of standards which we ought to be enjoying in the courts. I agree with all the criticisms which have been made that the broken-down and antediluvian state of many of our court buildings makes life miserable for all who have anything to do with them. It is right that there should be this considerable advance in new court buildings which the Government have embarked upon. This year we shall spend about £5 million on new court buildings.
Some detailed proposals concerning the administration of justice have been ventilated by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The House will not expect me to deal with them all, but I shall ensure that the suggestions which have been made are brought to the notice of the Beeching Commission and other committees who are actively engaged in considering these matters. I am sure that the Commission will examine them very carefully. I have particularly in mind the interesting suggestions made by one


of my hon. Friends concerning a number of matters concerning the circuit system and the arrangements for the courts. These matters need very careful consideration.
Nevertheless, the urgent problem which must now be faced is that the mere shortage of manpower on the bench is causing delays, and the increase in the number of judges will reduce those delays. I entirely agree that it is intolerable that we should have a situation in which a man can remain in gaol for month after month, and when he is tried he is acquitted, and there is no remedy for him. It is a scandalous state of affairs, and it is right that anything which can be done to eliminate that delay in bringing cases to trial, especially criminal cases, should be done.
The greatest delays are occurring in the courts at the Old Bailey, where the enormous pressure of the increase in crime in the London area has subjected the arrangements there to intolerable strain. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the new building which is being erected there will be finished by the end of 1970. It will provide 12 new courts. Three additional courts were brought into use in the Old Bailey in June of this year, and there will be another in use in 1968, so that, within the limits of our resources and the limited space in the Old Bailey area, we are pressing on towards a solution of the critical problem of court accommodation.
As for criminal appeals, I entirely agree with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). It is intolerable that a man who may be acquitted on appeal should have to wait in custody for month after month before his appeal is heard. In that respect, since the beginning of October two courts in the Court of Appeal have been sitting to dispose of criminal appeals and an improvement is undoubtedly being effected in the criminal appeal area. One of the major causes of delay lies in the provision of shorthand transcripts, but priority is being given to this. The judges are working enormously hard to clear the arrears in criminal appeals, and the position has much improved.
Emphasis was placed by many speakers—including the right hon. and

learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), for whose support for the Bill I am grateful—upon the necessity of maintaining the high standards of the judiciary. With that the whole House would agree. I am happy to think—as I am assured is the case by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor—that there is a pool of potential recruits at the Bar for the appointment of the additional judges. I know that a view has been expressed by one of my hon. Friends that solicitors should be available, and be selected, for appointments to these posts, but the training of the Bar and its experience specially qualifies it—in a way which the nature of a solicitor's work and practice does not—for holding these major judicial appointments.
I am not sure whether the picture that has been presented, of barristers being so remote from learning in life, is as accurate as all that; most judges who are appointed have spent their working lives at the Bar. Their clients have been men and women from every section and social class in the community, with their very real problems. Once a man has done about 300 or 400 divorce cases, criminal cases, accident cases or running down cases, starting in the magistrates' courts and going right through into the stratosphere of the House of Lords, there is little that he does not know about the difficulties and facts of life.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor was telling me about trade unionists and businessmen whom he had met who, after six months as justices of the peace, had said, "It is like going back to school. I have discovered that I never knew what really goes on in life." I am satisfied that there is, happily, a quality available at the Bar for the manning of these posts.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is everything to be said for the maximum facility of exchange between the two professions, so that the qualifications of a solicitor may be enjoyed by one transferring to the Bar and vice versa, and thence to the judiciary? Secondly, does not he agree that despite his recent remarks there is also much to be said for encouraging the aspect of legal education to which I have referred in sociology


and similar sciences for those who take legal training at universities?

The Attorney-General: I do not quarrel with either of the propositions put forward by my hon. and learned Friend.
I was asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom about appointments from the county court bench to the High Court bench. That is done. There is no resistance against it. The test that my noble and learned Friend undoubtedly applies in making appointments to the judiciary are tests of competence and ability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) told me that he would have to leave for another appointment, but in the context of what he said I can say that appointments to the High Court bench in Northern Ireland are on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, but it would be surprising if he were not to consult, among others, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in making those appointments. The test there, as elsewhere, will be the test of the ability of a judge and his suitability, and nothing else.
I could deal with a number of other matters, but many come under administration, which is not perhaps immediately within the contemplation of the subject matter of the debate. However, perhaps I may deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) about Clause 1(6). This subsection amends paragraph 1(1) of Part II of Schedule 7 to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which provides that the High Court in Northern Ireland shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice, and two puisne judges.
This Bill is drafted so as to enable any Order in Council authorising a future increase in the maximum number of judges to operate by way of amendment to Clause 1(1), so enabling the current position to be readily ascertained by reference to the revised Statutes which are kept noted up annually. It is thought desirable for this reason not to amend para-

graph 1(1) of Part II of Schedule 7 to the Act of 1920 by including a reference to four puisne judges instead of two. This is the effect of bringing the legislation relating to Northern Ireland into line with that relating to England and Wales. That explanation may lack the clarity which the hon. Gentleman referred to in the Bill itself, and it is gratifying to have a compliment of that kind.
Dealing with the state of the law itself, a massive attack is being made upon it, and I am sure that all of us are exhilarated to think that the process of codification, for instance, of the criminal law is in the next programme of the Law Commission. I am grateful to the House for the response which it has given to the Bill and I hope that it may now take its remaining stages with due speed through Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the maximum numbers of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and certain other judges, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable under any enactment out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to any provision of that Act—
(a) increasing the maximum number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, or of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal, puisne judges of the High Court or county court judges in England and Wales, or of judges of the Court of Session in Scotland, or of puisne judges of the High Court in Northern Ireland; or
(b) authorising Her Majesty by Order in Council from time to time to increase or further increase the maximum number of appointments which may be made to any of the offices mentioned in paragraph (a) above.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

Orders of the Day — TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.23 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On Friday, I was about to deal with the capital expenditure of trustee savings banks, and I can understand that the House will, with considerable reluctance, turn itself from the mutual congratulation of the lawyers which has preceded our discussion to the rather more prosaic consideration of matters affecting the trustee savings banks. As I was explaining, until this Bill it has been the practice that the trustee savings banks could provide for their capital expenditure out of the difference between the rate which the National Debt Commissioners allowed to them on moneys deposited with the Commissioners and the rate which they paid their depositors.
It is now thought that this should be put on a more satisfactory basis, and the Bill provides that the savings banks can now borrow from the Commissioners up to £10 million at commercial rates of interest, subject to the Commissioners' satisfying themselves that the borrower is sound and is borrowing for satisfactory purposes and after proper scrutiny by the trustee savings bank regional movement.
The main reason is to provide more modern buildings, to keep the existing ones in better repair and to provide the kind of frontal adornment which is now more popular than the old-fashioned presentation of shop fronts which has been common in the past. It will also be an area in which capital equipment will be particularly beneficial because no-where more than in banking are the modern devices of computer and office machinery more fruitful.
The third important change in the Bill is that it widens the scope of investment in the investment departments of the trustee savings banks. It widens them only modestly. It does not, of course, take them into the field of speculative investment, but merely makes possible to them a marginal gain in the way of interest returned on funds invested. So, for example, under the old restrictions, the savings banks

could not lend their money to local authorities in a yearling bond which has become fashionable and profitable to those who hold it, and this disability is removed by widening the range of investment.
The remaining Clauses deal with some small but useful changes in the trustee savings banks legislation affecting the form of accounts and matters of that kind with which I will not deal in detail unless I am asked to do so.
The Bill represents a useful support and encouragement to the better management and the progressive direction of the trustee savings bank movement. We should remember that, even in the Welfare State, which we all welcome, it is still necessary to encourage thrift and the more sober expressions of the human personality than those which usually feature in our Press. It is reassuring to emphasise, as I said on Friday, that this movement has grown to twice its size in volume of money in ten years and that thrifty people are still putting by for their old age to supplement by self-help whatever advantages the Welfare State brings—

Mr. Michael Alison: Would the hon. Gentleman elucidate whether this doubling in the volume of deposits is in the special deposit or ordinary deposit section, or in both together?

Mr. Lever: I am referring to the ordinary deposits, which have increased from £1,000 million to £2,000 million in the last ten years, give or take a few insignificant millions in either case.
The Government entirely support this movement and want to give it every encouragement. Even in our advanced Welfare State it is of the highest importance that self-help should be encouraged so that people can add to whatever is provided by the State in illness or old age. However gratifying it may be when one retires to reflect that one is a 50-millionth part-owner of the railway system, it is not quite so comforting as to have a little money in the bank, which adds to the dignity and the freedom of the individual when faced with some of the vicissitudes of life and the inevitable decline of old age.
For all these reasons, I am sure that the House will welcome the Bill and will


join with their encouragement to the trustee savings bank movement which we are aiding by this Bill.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: We on this side of the House certainly agree with the Financial Secretary's closing remarks, and we therefore welcome the Bill. I want to raise a number of fairly technical points, but first, on behalf of many hon. Members who sat here on Friday, I would say that we found the performance of the Treasury Bench last Friday quite extraordinary. There were two Bills on the Order Paper—the London Cab Bill and this Bill—and during the debate the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department began by speaking at 11.6 a.m. and continued until 11.25 a.m., altogether 19 minutes, and later in the debate he intervened—first he forgot to ask leave to speak again but eventually did so—between 2.7 p.m. and 3.29 p.m., making a grand total of one hour 41 minutes out of a total debating time on that Bill of four hours 36 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should come to the Bill which we are now discussing.

Mr. Higgins: I will certainly do that Mr. Speaker, but I wished to point out that a number of my hon. Friends who hoped to take part in the debate on Friday on this Bill and who sat throughout the day in an attempt to do so were sadly disappointed.

Mr. Harold Lever: Will the hon. Member permit me to intervene to correct a figure which I gave a few moments ago? The doubling is of the entire deposit and investment department, from about £1,140 million in 1947 to £2,232 million at present.

Mr. Higgins: I was glad to give way in order for the hon. Member to do that.
There are three points on which we have some advantage in concluding the debate today which was started on Friday. First, one point arises from what I find recorded in column 882 of HANSARD reporting he hon. Gentleman's speech—a passage concerned with the actual rate paid by the two departments of the Trustee Savings Bank. He said:

The Trustee Savings Bank gives absolute freedom of choice to the depositor—whether he prefers to have his money on short call at 2½ per cent., mostly tax free, or to move into the longer notice deposit involved with the Special Investment Department. We are not in the least anxious that people should get 2½ per cent. when their circumstances warrant investment in the Special Investment Department, where every convenience for their investment is offered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 882.]
In fact, there is not complete freedom in that respect because people are not allowed to invest in the special investment department unless they have a minimum of £50 in the ordinary department. That is a restriction to which I shall return in my concluding remarks, but I thought that I ought to give the hon. Gentleman notice of it.
The second reason is that in an answer to a Written Question yesterday the Postmaster-General revealed that the Post Office rate is to rise to 6 per cent. To the extent that the Bill is designed to put the trustee savings bank and the Post Office Savings Bank on the same basis, that change is not wholly irrelevant to our discussion. Thirdly, the Bank Rate has meanwhile risen to the record level of 8 per cent.
We on this side of the House welcome the Bill because it is designed to facilitate one of the most important sectors of the National Savings Movement, and we are sure that the voluntary sacrifice of people who have decided that they will defer consumption is very important, because it is on that basis that investment in productive capacity can take place without at the same time causing inflation. We therefore believe that this is an important point.
May I clear up one or two points of jargon? The fact that the hon. Member's speech was interrupted means that he has not been entirely clear when defining terms in his opening remarks but no doubt he will confirm what I say when he concludes the debate. The first piece of jargon is the expression "Fund for the Banks for Savings", which is a singularly clumsy expression to apply to funds which lie between the Government themselves and the trustee savings bank. The hon. Member has already distinguished the ordinary department, on which there is a rate of interest at the moment of 2½ per cent., from the special investment department, where the scope


for investment is somewhat broader and rate of return higher. It is important to distinguish these two Departments and to ascertain exactly what is the relationship between them, because there has been some correspondence in The Times in the last few days on the exact and precise relationship between them, a relationship which will be affected by the Bill.
May I now take up the point on which the hon. Member intervened—the level of savings. The figures which are available give cause for considerable alarm, not least because they are clearly related very closely to the movements of the stop-go cycle. The Quarterly Bulletin of the Bank of England last September pointed out,
The peaks in the savings ratio have usually followed periods in which real disposable incomes have been rising fast. They generally occur in years when action has been taken to correct inflationary conditions and when growth in real consumption has fallen. Thus measures to control the growth of incomes after the rapid increases of 1955, 1960 and 1963 curbed consumers' expenditure and led to peaks in the savings ratio in 1956, 1961 and 1964. On the other hand, when the savings ratio was low, measures were taken to stimulate demand—in 1954, 1958 and 1962.
In the present situation there is a danger (hat savings will fall, and we therefore need to examine the rates specified in the Bill, and go into the question in greater detail in Committee. The picture is less optimistic than that which the hon. Member sought to give the House. The level of savings in the Trustee Savings Bank has improved to some extent during 1967 compared with 1966 but it is still only half as great as in the same period in 1964. Net savings in the trustee savings bank during the 31 weeks of the financial year so far are 48 per cent. less than in the same week of 1964: a much sharper fall than the reduction in total national savings in the same period of about 20·7 per cent. The situation is not as favourable as the hon. Member suggested in giving us the increased flow of savings over a much longer period, because the fact is that the major increase took place between 1952/55 and 1962/65. That is when the real growth took place.
It is therefore important that we should consider whether the interest rates which are set in the Bill are adequate to ensure that the trustee savings bank movement,

which relies so heavily on voluntary workers and the enthusiasm of people in the movement, are adequate. On Friday the hon. Member pointed out that the rate of interest which is being changed in Clause 1 is not the rate of interest which is being paid to depositors. I believe that it would be wrong for us to try to reach any formal conclusions tonight on the rate to be paid to depositors, but in the light of the change which has taken place in interest rates generally we need to consider whether that, too, should be reviewed at later stages of the Bill.
The rate with which we are specifically concerned in Clause 1 is the rate which is paid to the trustee savings bank by the Government themselves through the "Fund for the Banks for Savings". That brings me to a number of questions which I should like to put to the Financial Secretary. First, in answering a Written Question yesterday, the Postmaster-General said that the interest rate on the Post Office Savings Bank investment accounts would go up from 5½ per cent. to 6 per cent. on 1st January. It has been pointed out in The Times today that in previous squeezes the branches of the National Savings movement have suffered from the inflexibility of their interest rates. The impression is that at this time the authorities acted unusually promptly in an effort to keep the movement buoyant. Are the trustee savings banks to be given the same degree of flexibility as that which the Postmaster-General is to give to the ordinary Post Office Savings Bank?
Secondly, the actual rate specified in the Bill is a maximum level, and I am not clear why the Financial Secretary should be so anxious to set that rather low ceiling. Clearly he could set a higher limit and still fix the exact rate by Statutory Instrument. Thirdly, what is the exact rate which it is proposed to set by the Statutory Instrument? I appreciate that last Friday the Financial Secretary had good reason to suppose that it would have been wrong for him to specify the rate. Tonight, however, he must have a clear idea of this rate. Will the Statutory Instrument fix the rate at the maximum specified in the Bill?
The increase in the rate is not directly related to the rate paid by depositors but is designed to enable the trustee savings banks to cover the increased costs which


they incur as a result of their normal operations. Thus, this is effectively not a rate of interest increase in the strict sense of the term but is, rather, an additional payment to the trustee savings banks so that they may carry out their operations properly.
One of the many increases in costs suffered by them have resulted from the Selective Employment Tax. It seems extraordinary that the Government should impose S.E.T. on these banks—which enable the Government to borrow money at low rates of interest by current standards. I understood from the Financial Secretary's remarks that it is intended that the increased rate paid will enable the trustee savings banks to reapportion their expenses between the ordinary department, on the one hand, and the special investment department, on the other.
This matter was raised in a letter published in The Times Business Section yesterday. In it, the writer, Mr. John Kerr, of the Enniskillen Savings Bank, Northern Ireland, asked a number of questions. He asked, among other things, whether it was right that the Government should deal with the allocation of expenses as between two departments in this way. In case the Financial Secretary is not familiar with the letter, and since it could be of importance, I will read it:
With regard to the Trustee Savings Banks Bill presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, attention should be drawn to Clause 6 where the directions may be given by the National Debt Commissioners to a trustee savings bank under Section 40(1) of the principal Act with respect to the bank's business of making special investments include directions as to the manner in which the total expenses of management are to be apportioned in the bank's accounts, as between the business of making such investments and the handling of ordinary deposits …
The letter went on to complain that this would substantially alter the competitive advantage of the trustee savings banks vis-à-vis, for example, building societies. I hope that at least in Committee if not now, the Financial Secretary will clear up this matter and say whether this determination of the allocation of overheads by the authorities is necessary or whether it is something which could conveniently be left to the trustee savings banks themselves.
Clause 2 concerns the money which the trustee savings banks may have to build

up their establishments; the buildings, computers, and so on they employ. I was interested to hear the Financial Secretary say that they would be borrowing at "commercial rates of interest". Does that mean Bank Rate? Or does it mean the present deposit rates of the ordinary banks? What does the hon. Gentleman regard as a commercial rate of interest in this context? It may make a great difference to the trustee savings bank movement if, instead of borrowing at the rate which these banks are giving their depositors, 2½ per cent., they must pay for their buildings at 8 per cent. On the other hand, there is no real reason why these institutions should pay a rate of interest which is significantly lower than that which other institutions must pay. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will clear up this point and will define what he means by "commercial rates of interest".
Clause 3 is concerned with the greater freedom which the trustee savings banks are to have in regard to their investment portfolio. As the Financial Secretary pointed out, this is at present determined by the Trustees Investment Act, 1961. I believe that the scope of the trustee savings banks is to be widened to include all the items specified in Schedule II of that Act. This is somewhat worrying because, in the present financial situation, the Government may find themselves—as the Prime Minister said last night—in a situation in which inflation is taking place. It is clearly difficult for the trustee savings banks to have an adequate hedge against inflation if they are limited to a very narrow range of investments. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that these banks have sufficient scope to avoid that danger?
I return to the question of the £50 requirement which had to be met by people investing in the ordinary department before being allowed to invest in the special investment department as well. This concept has been attacked by a number of people; for example, by Lombard in an article in The Financial Times on 20th November, 1965, when it was stated:
In any case, it is hard to see what possible justification there can be for the decision to link the right to open an investment deposit account with the possession of a minimum deposit in an ordinary account. The experience of the trustee savings banks has


shown that this requirement is next to impossible to enforce since there is nothing to stop an investor taking the qualification sum out of the ordinary account once it has served its purpose".
Is that true? In other words, is it possible for someone who wants to invest in the special investment department to put £50 in the ordinary department, invest in the investment department, and then take the £50 out of the ordinary department? If so, it seems a silly situation and undue restraint is being placed on the choice which the investor in the trustee savings banks is allowed to exercise.
My hon. Friends and I are gravely concerned at the fall in the level of savings. The rate of inflation has a considerable amount to do with this. We are particularly concerned to see in the last two days the extraordinary doctrine proposed from the Government Front Bench—in particular proposed by the President of the Board of Trade—that on our international obligations there is no reason why we should not refuse to repay the full amount of principle which has been lent to us because those concerned have been getting a reasonable rate of interest on the money, anyway.
To propound this doctrine is iniquitous and we are concerned because, once such a doctrine is propounded in the international sphere, it may spread. The whole basis on which the trustee savings bank movement has been founded—namely, that it is virtually Government guaranteed, so that one can be sure of security and so on—could then be undermined.
'This Bill will assist the trustee savings bank movement, and we hope that it will now go forward. I join with the Financial Secretary in paying tribute to the work of the movement and in stressing the very great necessity there is, if we are to progress on the economic front, to do everything possible to encourage the level of savings, and to ensure that that level rises consistently and steadily in the future.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I join the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in welcoming this Bill. The hon. Gentleman has submitted the Bill to very close examination, but

despite his remarks I am comforted by the knowledge that this Measure has been considered by the Trustee Savings Bank Committee. We have been through the Bill, and we are satisfied that it meets the requirements of the situation. I do not dissent from his observation that we would not have been disappointed had the interest rate been a little higher.
I, too, regard this as a very important Bill. I was rather astonished, however, to hear him say that but for some reason or other which he did not mention, a number of his hon. Friends would have been taking part in our debate this evening. I think that he had in mind the large number of his hon. Friends who were present on Friday. It struck me as strange at the time that on a Friday, which is not always a convenient day for hon. Members to attend, there should have been such a large number of hon. Members opposite present; while tonight, a Thursday evening, which is much more convenient to hon. Members, such a relatively small number of them should now be present.
I suspect that the reason for such a large outturn of Opposition Members on Friday was not to support the Bill—and I cast no aspersions on their motives—but to promote an entirely different type of debate on a topic in no way related to the purpose of this Measure. I guess that it was purely a political adventure aimed at cashing in, for party purposes, on a Bill which they are now supporting—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I understand that Mr. Speaker intervened to prevent the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) from pursuing this line. In the circumstances, I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) will be wise to draw his present remarks to a close.

Mr. Rankin: I leave that part of my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Alison: I also recognise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on a Thursday evening all good Scotsmen go to Scotland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the score is now even.

Mr. Rankin: That is a great distortion of the fact and a grievous insinuation, because it infers that I am not a good Scotsman. The hon. Member said that all good Scotsmen returned to Scotland on a Thursday evening. That is quite untrue, because in the House at this moment there is one of the best of Scotsmen addressing the hon. Member and those of his hon. Friends who are present.
The hon. Member for Worthing lamented the fact that the returns show that savings have fallen seriously since 1964. He implied to that the interest rate was not sufficiently attractive. But a fall in savings so serious, as to attract his attention might be due, not so much to lack of inducement; as to the results of thirteen years of Tory misrule beginning to manifest themselves in 1964 on the savings of the people. Here is proof of what we have all along maintained—the devastatingly bad effect of Toryism on the people's savings—

Mr. Higgins: Personal savings rose threefold in the period 1952–55 to 1962–65. That scarcely suggests that in that period people were not saving better.

Mr. Rankin: But the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that money was much cheaper then than it is now.
The hon. Gentleman referred to investment in buildings, and so on. Great investment is now being made at Cow-glen, not far from where I live in Glasgow. The buildings are not yet completed but they will be a tremendous credit to the results of our savings movement. The housing of the staff and their working conditions will be quite unmatched. The new Post Office savings bank building is in one of the loveliest areas of southern Glasgow. Therefore, we now have a tremendous physical incentive for supporting generally this movement. The Glasgow Corporation is also playing its part in providing accommodation for the bank employees at Cow-glen. One great multi-storey block of flats is already up and occupied by bank servants. We must take note of this progress on the physical side.
So, in those few words, I welcome this Bill. I am sure also that I win the support of both sides of the House in saying that we wish success to the trustee savings banks.

8.0 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I must declare an interest, thought not a financial one, because trustees and managers of trustee savings banks do not get any financial benefit from their position. But I would like to commend the Bill to the House. Some of us in all parties are interested in the trustee savings bank organisation when we have an opportunity to discuss these matters.
It would be fair to say that there are problems, some of which have been indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), which might be considered again. There is always—I am pleased to say this, because it is extremely satisfactory—consultation between the National Debt Office and the Treasury and the Trustee Savings Bank Association. But I must say that, in the light of events, I wonder whether the ceiling fixed for the payment made by the Government to the trustee savings banks at £3 13s. per cent.—and I am trying to be quite non-political in the party sense—are at present in a state of flux.
It is important that this payment should be sufficient, because it could involve further legislation. That is not a simple matter, because the whole idea of the Trustee Savings Bank Association is that it should be on equal lines with the Post Office Savings Bank. I realise that we cannot change the one without changing the other but, between now and the Committee stage, it might be of advantage if the top rate were considered with a view to its being raised to some extent.
Mention has been made of the £50 which must be in the ordinary account before investments can be made in the special investment account. I think that it is true that this must be so. Although the £50 can be taken out, no further investment can be made without £50 being put back. Perhaps the element, which must be borne in mind, of the £15 interest free of tax, is not unconnected with that. I think that this may possibly justify what, at first sight, appears to be a rather unusual way of dealing with the situation.
I shall not go into detail about the developments which have taken place amongst the trustee savings banks. They are a very live body and will be much


helped by Clause 2, which revives capital for certain purposes, such as the buying of buildings or the building of buildings, buying land and also the provision of up-to-date sophisticated office equipment. It is satisfactory that the sum of £10 million is not being specifically allocated. It is not divided in any particular way. That will be a great help in the development which is taking place in various parts of the country.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) referred to Glasgow. The three places where development has taken place which has helped subsequently other places are probably Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool. This is all very satisfactory, but it had its limitations and I think that development will be much better dealt with by the arrangements to be made in the Bill.
I do not want to say much about the extension of investments for the special investment department, but I want to say something about the arrangements made previously for dealing with the difference between the ordinary accounts and the special investment accounts. The situation was that the special investment department accounts were carrying an unfair share of the burden of management and it was agreed, and thought to be wise, that there should be a change which recognised the situation, so that ordinary accounts and special investment accounts would proportionately share management costs. I am glad indeed to see that.
I have two other small matters to raise. One is very small indeed. I wonder whether the penny will buy anything now that it is proposed in the Bill to abolish it for the banks' annual statements. That is a praiseworthy thing to do, but it removes the last means of using a penny by itself.

Mr. Harold Lever: The hon. Gentleman forgets the possibilities still in force of using the coin usefully in a well-established manner in old-established premises.

Sir E. Errington: At any rate, this is one more piece of erosion of the value of the penny.
I want finally to mention the superannuation of those who have savings bank experience and who go to the Savings Bank Institute and who pre-

viously have not been able to carry on their superannuation arrangements with the savings bank. The Institute is a very valuable educational body and some very good and able people go there and it would be very wrong if they were to suffer in their superannuation.
I heartily support the Bill. It has been arranged and discussed and is subject only to whether some of the rates can be adjusted more nearly to meet the situation. Subject to that, I submit that it is an extremely good Bill on a very important activity and should have the support of all parties.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) has just said, the Bill has the support of the trustee savings bank movement and for that reason alone deserves the support of the House. I should like to pay some tribute to those who, like my hon. Friend, are trustees of these banks and who give their services free and, in particular, to the actuaries whose skills and judgment would be rewarded elsewhere on a higher level.
Despite what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) said, savings have undergone a difficult three-year period, and it is interesting to compare the fortunes of the Post Office Savings Bank with the trustee savings banks in the last three years. The Financial Secretary gave some figures for the trustee savings banks but left out any comparative figures for the Post Office Savings Banks. Going back only to 1964—the hon. Member for Govan will detect the significance of that year—the Post Office Savings Bank had total balances of £1,814 million. At the same time, the trustee savings banks had total balances of £1,893 million. They were running about neck and neck. After two years, the Post Office Savings Bank's balances had fallen by £20 million yet at the same time the trustee savings banks' balances had gone up by £257 million.

Mr. Rankin: That is when I joined the Committee.

Mr. Body: The hon. Gentleman must have joined the committee of an English trustee savings bank, because there has


been a greater growth in England than in Scotland—which may explain why, as was said earlier, not all Scotsmen leave the House on a Thursday night. The latest figures which I have for the Post Office Savings Bank show a further fall of £6 million and a further rise of £81 million for the trustee savings banks. The situation now is that the Post Office Savings Bank is down to £1,788 million while the trustee savings banks balance is now £2,232 million. Instead of their being neck and neck, as they were three years ago there is now a great gulf between them, and, far from their having the equal popularity of three years ago, the trustee savings banks are now markedly more attractive to depositors.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said recently that savings were improving. He did not say by how much and one suspects, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) hinted, that any improvement has been the result of the notable achievements of the trustee savings banks in the last three years, since the hon. Member for Govan has shared in their fortunes. Clearly, the wage freeze at a time of rising prices must be the main reason for these other savings not having gone ahead. The policy of a wage freeze, except as a short-term expediency, is unjust, unworkable and unnecessary. I would be out of order if I argued that it was unjust and unworkable, but I apprehend that I shall be in order if I suggest that it is unnecessary. If higher wages are accompanied by higher savings, an incomes policy can be avoided. Moreover, it is not essential for all the increase in incomes to go into savings. A fraction of that increase in wages put into savings is enough, provided that it goes into the right form of savings.
In present conditions, the right form of savings must be in the form of capital for the private sector of the economy where further wealth can be generated and the commercial and industrial greatness of the country can be restored. It is up to the Government by their fiscal powers and Parliament by its legislative powers to provide incentives to enable those savings to be made and, having been made, to see that they are diverted

into places where the maximum amount of good to the economy can be done.
The Government have convinced themselves that an increase in wage costs must make for an increase in unit costs, and, according to that doctrine, an increase in wages must have the effect of raising the cost-of-living index and accordingly forcing wages up further.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Nonsense.

Mr. Body: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that it is nonsense. If there is one Member among those opposite, who as a whole voted for a wage freeze, he alone might support me on this, and I find it strange that it should come from his lips that what I am saying is nonsense. We know that if the wages bill goes beyond a certain point, the employer is driven to lowering his unit costs by capital expenditure. He increases the intensity of capital and lowers the intensity of labour. That is what economic progress is about.
Such progress can be made only if there is a supply of fresh capital. Higher wages can supply that fresh capital. Perhaps the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) might agree with me at this stage? I am all in favour of a high wage economy. To hold down wages artificially is to blunt the competitive edge of our economy. An incomes policy must, in the long term, be the hallmark of a stagnant and growthless society.
This side of the House glories in the fact that there are now 4 million shareholders in industry. Many hon. Members opposite would be surprised to meet some of the numerous steelworkers and farm workers who, two decades ago would have shied away from the Stock Exchange, but who now read avidly the reports of the Stock Exchange and watch their investments.

Mr. Rankin: I want the hon. Gentleman to be quite clear. I hope that he is not under the impression that I do not believe in savings. It is the most important part of our social life. I have always been a firm supporter of Mr. Micawber's maxim.

Mr. Body: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is. One does not doubt that,


but one wishes that his Socialist doctrines would in practice enable more people to save.
It is unrealistic to expect the number of small investors on the Stock Exchange to grow quickly. Money will go on flowing into the trustee savings banks. Here are the funds which could be devoted to the great free enterprise companies. Clause 3 does not go far enough to canalise the funds where they are most needed to restore the commercial greatness of our country.
The Clause permits the trustee savings banks to acquire investments as set out in Part II of the First Schedule of the Trustee Investments Act, 1861. It provides 13 more kinds of investment for a trustee savings bank. What a staid list it is. One sees there the 2 per cent. Consols. I cannot imagine any trustee savings bank being enthused by that relic of Dr. Dalton. Also on the list are the securities of the nationalised industries—again no vigorous director of the trustee savings bank—

Mr. Harold Lever: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would enlighten me because he has obviously studied this matter with great care and is expert in this area. I have not previously heard of the 2 per cent. Consols, supposedly issued by Dr. Dalton. Could he give me some reference to the date at which they were issued and where such stock can be bought?

Mr. Body: I cannot imagine that the Financial Secretary would be the slightest bit interested in investing in such woebegone securities.

Mr. Lever: There is not such a thing.

Mr. Body: I should have said 2½ per cent. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is muttering about.

Mr. Lever: I will help the hon. Gentleman. He seems to be very vague about the rate of interest, I hope that the trustee savings banks are a little more precise when they examine these matters. The hon. Gentleman was talking about 2 per cent. Consols, which he has now amended rapidly to 2½ per cent. Consols. I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that the 2½ per cent. Consols were in existence before either he or Dr. Dalton was born.

Sir E. Errington: They were called the Funds.

Mr. Body: Part II does not specify these Consols by name but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what I am referring to, and he knows perfectly well, in those days of the cheap Bank Rate, that the former Chancellor launched upon the public such stock. They were launched, if my memory is correct—I may be out by a point or two—at something like 98 and they fell rapidly and are now under half their original value, even in money terms let alone real terms. Some people on this side of the House believe that the launching of that stock verged on deception of the public.

Mr. Rankin: In the days when wages were 25s. to 30s. a week, saving was almost impossible.

Mr. Body: Exactly. That was before the days to which I was referring, but enough has been said already about that period.
Part III of the Schedule should be included. This would enable the trustee savings banks to invest in unit trusts and shares in building societies and in ordinary equities. I hope that the Financial Secretary will not suggest that the trustees cannot be trusted to embark on such investment. Obviously, no board would be reckless enough to invest more than a small proportion—perhaps 10 per cent., certainly no more than a quarter—of its deposits in such equity. It cannot be suggested that the banks are not competent to handle such money.
The figures which I gave earlier show quite definitely that the trustees and actuaries of the trustee savings banks have amply discharged their duty to protect depositors' money. The increased power of investment could safely be put in the hands of the trustee savings banks, and I believe that if that were done the nation's wealth would gain.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: I wish to draw attention to a hiatus which certainly occurs in one particular case and may occur in other cases between the general provisions, in particular, of Clauses 1 and 2 relating to what might be described as a bonus for management purposes of 10s. 6d. per cent.


and the possibility of £10 million for investment to improve property.
In a bank of which I have had some detail from a constituent not entirely disconnected with it, to put it at its most discreet, conditions are so bad that the staff are leaving rapidly. He and one clerk look after about £750,000 in balances, representing 3,000 to 4,000 investors. If they are to have a meal, it is impossible to observe the trustee savings bank rule that two clerks must attend to every transaction. He has had two Saturday mornings off in 15 years. They do all their own cleaning. I could elaborate in greater detail.
Is it within the remit of the Treasury, with its paternal rôle in the trustee savings bank movement as provided for in the Bill, to concern itself with conditions of this sort within individual branches or banks? If it is, I should be happy if the Financial Secretary would allow me to send him details of this case. It has been impossible to find any responsible body to which one could make reference in such cases. This is the first general point on which I should like elucidation.
Secondly, in so far as it is his concern, is the Financial Secretary sure that the method of running the ordinary deposits is right? He intervened earlier to indicate that the very substantial increase in total deposits in the trustee savings banks over a long time was a general one embracing both the special and ordinary. My question is this: Are the ordinary deposits being used in the way in which Lord Radcliffe indicated there was some danger they might be used?
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think it an imposition if I read a very short paragraph, paragraph 957, of the Radcliffe Report on the Working of the Monetary System. It states:
… the trustee savings banks are organised to do savings bank rather than current account banking business, and the terms on which they take deposits are based on the assumption that the deposits they receive, though technically repayable at call, will in practice be savings rather than demand deposits. As the pressure upon these institutions to offer current account banking facilities grows, their embarrassment, and their real difficulties, will increase.
I get the impression that there has been a subtle if definite change in the rôle

of the ordinary deposit in the trustee savings bank movement, namely, that it is rapidly becoming akin to an ordinary account in a joint stock bank.

Sir E. Errington: While it is most important that the essence of the trustee savings bank is savings, is it not desirable that people who have savings may, if they wish, use the sort of facilities, as long as they do not get out of hand, which my hon. Friend has in mind?

Mr. Alison: I concede that it is certainly desirable that the trustee savings banks should be used to the maximum possible extent, but if they are being used in regard to the ordinary deposits as day-to-day banking facilities, the 2½ per cent. interest rate is neither one thing nor the other. Either it should be totally absent, as in the case of the ordinary joint stock banking facilities, or it should be boosted up a bit and a moderate time withdrawal clause should be inserted, as in the case of a building society loan.
If we are about to give a substantial extra bonus of 10s. 6d. per cent. for the management of the ordinary deposit accounts, we should be clear whether there is a change as indicated by the Radcliffe Report, whether they are not so much savings in the terms of the ordinary deposit account as ordinary banking facilities and, if so, whether the money will be well spent. It is important that the 2½ per cent., which is a peculiarly remote figure in terms of current reality, should have some value in the programme of work and objectives of ordinary deposits. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to illuminate this.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: I hope that the House will give me permission to speak again so that I may clear up one or two of the points which have been raised. I welcome the support which has been given to the Bill from all parts of the House and the interest which hon. Members have shown. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who obviously would have preferred to speak on a Friday, has overcome his propensity to taciturnity and has stayed for a Thursday debate, to which he contributed so brilliantly, bringing in the local colour which we expect from him.
I hope that I do not seem discourteous to the ingenious contributions which have been made from the other side of the House which sought to weave into the pattern of an innocent savings Bill all kinds of intriguing political controversy, the relevance of which must have been obvious to you with your greater tolerance and quicker understanding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but which was not always obvious to myself. I could not hope to emulate those hon. Members who have spoken and I will, therefore, avoid such topics as the prices and incomes policy and the records of the respective Governments over a wide field of economic activity and I will confine myself rather narrowly to the Bill.
I was first asked the reason for the £50 restriction on the depositor who wants to put his money in the investment department. This originally came because in earlier days—it is a long-standing restriction—it was found that when people started to put their money into the investment department without keeping any money available on short call, they tended to embarrass themselves and the trustee savings bank manager by coming in in emergency and asking for the month's notice rule of the investment department to be broken.
To discourage that and to encourage a certain liquidity preference on the part of those who wish to embark on a more ambitious range of investments, the rule was applied. It is not remorselessly policed by the trustee savings banks, who are, obviously, not only a successful institution, but a tolerant, understanding institution with roots in the locality, especially those mentioned by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), where the savings bank movement has been strongest and where common sense is probably at the highest level in the kingdom. There we very often find that, although this rule is enforced before the account is opened, the investment accounts' running down by a few pounds is not altogether forbidden
I am not saying that such matronly supervision is as appropriate to the average depositor in 1967 as when the rule was first established, but when the hon. Gentleman feels so very strongly about it I am prepared to have a look into that, in consultation with those self-

sacrificing gentlemen who, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot do, in fact, run these banks, and on whom we rely for a good deal of advice about local conditions.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) raised a point about the Post Office putting up the rate to 6 per cent. in the investment department and wondered why the trustee savings banks, which are private enterprise banks, respectable and worthy people, but not under the control of this Government, are not doing as well as the Post Office Savings Bank in this respect. The answer is that they may well do so. The answer is that the amount each bank returns to its investment department depends on how successfully it invests funds placed with that department, and with higher rates of interest temporarily available the trustee savings banks presumably will look to their laurels and seek to improve the returns on their investment departments. I think it may be a question of time. The Post Office has got off the mark very well, before the trustee savings banks—

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in 1964–65 effectively a curb was placed on the rates which the special investment departments of the trustee savings banks were allowed to give to their depositors. Would he give us an assurance, in view of what has happened with the Post Office, that no such curb will be imposed in future? Would he do so, if not immediately, some time before the end of his speech, because I raised this point with him on Friday, and he will be aware of it?

Mr. Lever: All I can say at this moment—I have lost my means of communication—is that I hope the hon. Gentleman will rely on my interpretation of signs and symbols rather than actual reliable communications, but I think I can say for my own part that I cannot see why the Government should put a curb on the success of these departments by limiting the rate. It is up to these departments to earn as much as they can within the area of safe investment.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) very understandably felt they ought to branch out into financing industry—into unit trusts and investment in industry. In these departments the depositors are not men


who want by choice to go and invest in unit trusts or anything of that sort. These are accounts which guarantee a return of money at an appropriate rate of interest not subject to the kind of capital loss which the hon. Gentleman expatiated upon and which is possible in an altogether different kind of investment. I do not want to enter irrelevant party politics and I do not want to play tit for tat in the hon. Member's politicking, but the greater part of the losses occurred in the era of the Conservative Government. The depositors do not want to be involved in the ups and downs of Government bonds. These are small investors who, in the main, do not wish to acquire knowledge of equities or forms of bond buying. They want to know their money is safe. They want to know they will get a steady rate of interest and these things can best be achieved if they do not invest in equities.
In the new year they will be allowed to initiate, with a great deal of care and caution, the trustee savings banks' unit trust. I think that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston will be unable to detect any signs of an ideological approach on the part of this Government, since it is under our auspices and with our blessing that, for the first time in the 150 years' history of the movement, this will enable the trustee savings bank movement to participate in equity investment, and it proves how false are those who say that this Government are prejudiced against private enterprise. Here we are, for the first time in a century and a half—this is not a case of 13 years but of 150 years of neglect under Conservative Governments—initiating the Savings Bank movement into channelling the funds of small savers into the equity movement—

Sir E. Errington: And it is being done voluntarily and charitably.

Mr. Lever: It is being done voluntarily, charitably, and with great skill by those who devote their time to organising it.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Holland with Boston will not think it discourteous of me if I do not deal in detail with the arguments about the relative attractions

of the Post Office Savings Bank. There is a see-saw in these matters. Sometimes the Post Office attracts more deposits and sometimes the savings banks. In a sense, they are in competition, but it is a healthy competition, and it is for the public to choose where and at what times they invest in those bodies.
I do not think that one can nourish the House a great deal intellectually by a study of the up and down graphs and the neck-and-neck racing for the acquisition of deposits by these two well-known, well established and thoroughly trustworthy institutions. I welcome the success of either or both, and long may their healthy rivalry continue.
We should not be too unduly perturbed if there are moments when savings decline as well as moments when they go up. The money is put by for rainy days, and sometimes we have national rainy days when a great many people have difficulties together. One of the points of these savings is to ensure that if, for any reason, there is a decline in employment, the economic difficulty of reduced overtime or a matter of that kind, those who have been thrifty are able to use their savings to mitigate the effect of the depression of their incomes.
I have been asked whether the rate should be increased above the ceiling provided for in the Bill, and what will the rate be after the acceptance of the Bill by the House, as seems probable. The rate proposed is some way below the £3 13s. 6d. ceiling fixed in the Bill. The reason why we fixed the ceiling fairly low was to ensure that either I or some future Financial Secretary should appear before the House within a measurable number of years to ask for the ceiling to go up, if it should prove necessary, in the event of a rise in prices. We think that the ceiling will last for a number of years, although I understand the tactful allusion to recent events which might shorten the period which we had in mind. However, this is the rate paid to the trustee savings banks and not that paid to depositors.

Sir E. Errington: Surely there can be no harm in raising the rate. It is always very nice to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the Dispatch Box, but legislation is difficult, things take a little


time, there is considerable argument, and so on. Surely there is no merit in keeping the top ceiling low. There is some merit in keeping the lower level as low as possible, but not the top ceiling.

Mr. Lever: The Treasury feels that a wide latitude without legislative provision encourages everyone to hit the ceiling, however high it may be. The Treasury has a reflex preference for lower ceilings, with legislative provision required to lift them. I am not sure that its purpose is solely to give the House what the hon. Gentleman kindly called the pleasure of seeing me here. On the one hand, it is to encourage trustee savings banks to keep within the ceiling in the management of their costs, seek to be more efficient, and keep the process of erosion at its slowest pace. On the other, it is to give the House an opportunity to discuss the affairs of the savings banks. If we fixed the ceiling at something like 6 per cent., it would be difficult to persuade my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that any such consideration of the trustee savings banks would be appropriate.
It has also been suggested that the 2½ per cent. rate we are paying now to depositors is either unsatisfactory or ought to be looked at again in Committee This is the rate which has been paid since 1888. It must not be said that this is paid at this flat rate as a touching adherence to Victoriana. One of the few remaining Victorian institutions is the 2½ per cent. rate. The reason is that we give tax-free exemption to the great majority of the accounts in the ordinary department, most of which are small accounts, and the interest on which is below the £15 ceiling. Therefore, they are in many cases getting 4 per cent.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) queried whether some embarrassment would not be caused by the running of these accounts as current accounts in some way. The hon. Member for Aldershot has a long and intimate connection with these banks. They are there to serve the public, and if there are minor modifications in the way that the service is afforded I would have thought that there was no objection to that
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash brandished the Radcliffe Report at me. I must freely confess that I once read it,

but I cannot honestly say that I recall with particular attention the paragraph that he quoted in support of his arguments to suggest that in some way there would be growing embarrassment to the trustee savings banks if they continued the practice of making available the widest possible service to their customers.
The hon. Member for Aldershot seemed singularly unembarrassed at having this crime pinned upon him, and all the eminent gentlemen who have helped in this movement seemed in an equal state of unembarrassed pleasure at the savings banks adding to the services that they render to the workaday public every year. They are not in competition with the joint stock banks. They do not draw cheques or anything of that kind, but if they perform useful little services for the management of money, that is why they are brought into existence.
I do not follow the point made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, that if they are giving this useful service they should pay nothing by way of interest and, if they are not giving this useful service, they should pay more. Why not leave it to the eminent trustees to decide what services they should give? Far from being a cost to the public Exchequer by reason of the services that they give, it must be conceded that the Exchequer has no cause for resentment either at the size of the deposits that accrue to them from the savings banks ordinary department, or the rate of interest that it has to pay back in return.

Mr. Alison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I thought it was relevant to the extent that the 10s. 6d. per cent. increase in the Treasury bonus, as one might say, seemed to be directly related to the management expenses of the trustee savings bank. If they are increasingly being used to operate demand deposits as ordinary current accounts, the management expenses are bound to go up considerably. One wonders whether to give them at the same time possibly a 4 per cent. rate of interest on what amount to demand deposits is not pulling in the opposite direction to the need to help management.

Mr. Lever: The fact remains that they are giving this service and are able to do it on a margin between what they have to pay at 2½ per cent. and what


we are allowing them. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the ceiling here is £3 13s. 6d. and we are not even paying that yet. Even if we get to the ceiling, the Exchequer would be getting a good bargain and so would the customer by having, cheaply provided, services which very often preclude him, as the hon. Gentleman implies, in a commercial bank from having any rate of interest at all. If these banks can, on the one hand, give the service and, on the other, give the rate of interest to the depositor and also require for the management of their banks so modest a sum that the overall rate of interest to the Exchequer is as favourable as it now is, why should we complain? We should praise them and encourage them to widen and continue it.
The question was asked: why should the Government dictate the apportionment of costs as between the savings banks and the ordinary department? This is to get some sort of uniformity, one would suppose, in the arrangement. The Government look at these things through the Treasury and we try to see what is a fair basis.
It is not always easy to calculate, and I do not want to weary the House by going into the detailed possibilities of apportionment, but we have people in the Treasury who are not unfamiliar with handling these matters. We do not dictate. We seek to assist the banks by naming the manner in which the apportionment should take place. When we make an apportionment it is with the honest intention of being fair to both departments. We do it in consultation with the trustees and with a desire to produce an overall just result.

Mr. Higgins: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's statement that they do not dictate, they merely advise.

Mr. Lever: I did not say that we merely advise. We do not dictate. We fix the apportionment, but it is not dictation. It is a rate which is fixed after consultation with the trustees and in each case after consideration of what would constitute a fair apportionment of the costs. One reason why we are moving up the rate paid to the ordinary department is to enable it to pay its fair proportion of costs. I hope that the hon.

Gentleman will not mind my precluding him from going on with the argument, but I think that he misunderstood me when I said that we did not dictate. I did not mean that we do not take responsibility for fixing the rate, but that is different from laying down the law to a reluctant victim. This is done in consultation with the Trustee Savings Bank, and, we think, to the general satisfaction of everybody concerned.

Mr. Higgins: In that case Clause 6 seems to be otiose, because it says that direction may be given by the National Debt Commissioners to a trustee savings bank. If it can be done by consultation, and there is not going to be direction, why do we need Clause 6?

Mr. Lever: We must have uniformity. It has to be enforceable, and after consultation, in the way we normally do it, the Commissioners lay down what the apportionment should be and the manner of it.
When I said, "to the satisfaction of everybody", I was exaggerating slightly. because there is the gentleman in The Times Business News. I am not unfamiliar either with tax law, or with some of the financial matters to which he alludes, but I confess that the editor of The Times Business News must have a more acute grasp of these matters than I have, because I find the letter largely incomprehensible. One may infer from that that my lack of understanding is the product of my learning, but even so I cannot illuminate the subject in any way based on this letter. It seems that Mr. Kerr is dissatisfied. At all events, that emerges clearly from his somewhat lengthy letter, but what has caused his dissatisfaction I am unable, with the best will in the world, to analyse. Therefore it is not the point that he made, which is the apportionment of costs as between one department and another, which causes his dissatisfaction. There must be another point about tax law which seems to be of too erudite a nature for me to comprehend, though I have studied it carefully.
I am asked what rate we will charge on the loans of capital by the National Debt Commissioners to the banks. The answer is the commercial rate. It will be investigated by the Commissioners in the same way as any other investment, and


we will get the commercial rate from the trustee savings banks for the loans that we make for capital account.

Mr. Higgins: Can the Minister say what that rate is at the present time?

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman can hardly have chosen a more awkward moment for me to fix the rate of interest. I think that there is a sufficient state of flux in these matters. There is no fixed rule-of-thumb rate. It is the rate which the Commissioners in their infinite wisdom and experience consider to be the reasonable commercial rate when they lend. So far they have not loaned anything. They cannot do so until the House concedes the power in this Bill. When the power is conceded, if the House thinks fit to do so, the Commissioners will proceed to put a new customer on their books for loans. So far it has all been one way. It has been the trustee savings banks offering money to the Exchequer. Now the Commissioners will lend capital money to the trustee savings banks, and they will lend at the rate appropriate on commercial terms, having regard to the length of time, the nature of the sum, and all ancillary relevant matters. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the rate for lending, which cannot in the nature of things take place until he and his hon. Friends, and my hon. Friends, if they are so minded give us power to lend this money.
I think that I have dealt with all the points except one, namely, the pensions situation, which was raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot. The situation there is the same as for the Civil Service. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash wondered whether the Treasury power extended to cover the working conditions of any trustee savings bank. It is primarily the responsibility of the trustees themselves to see that the working conditions are up to scratch. If the hon. Member will give me particulars I can say on behalf of the Department of which I have the honour to be Financial Secretary that nothing humane is alien to us and that our paternal and sympathetic eye is everywhere in matters of this kind. If the hon. Member can give me particulars, I assure him that the Treasury will immediately and effectively, and probably informally, see what is to be done about it.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston referring to what my right hon.

Friend the President of the Board of Trade said yesterday asserted that my right hon. Friend excused the default on obligations. I hope that the hon. Member will not repeat that assertion, especially as he used it inappropriately in relation to a Savings Bank Bill debate.

Mr. Body: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lever: The hon. Member said that my right hon. Friend excused the default on our international obligations on the ground that we had paid interest—

Mr. Body: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lever: I understood that the hon. Member was making that point. If not, I am delighted. I understood him to criticise my right hon. Friend by suggesting that he excused—

Mr. Body: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lever: I took a careful note of what the hon. Member said, but no doubt it is a figment of my imagination. In that case I will pass from the point and thank the House for its cordial reception of the Bill which I am sure will serve the purposes we desire to further—the cause of the trustee savings bank movement.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to trustee savings banks, it is expedient to authorise any increased charge which may fall on the Consolidated Fund under section 36 of the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1954 in consequence of provisions of the Act of the present Session—
(a) raising to £3 13s. 0d. per cent. the maximum rate which may be fixed by order of the Treasury under section 27 of the Act of 1954 as the rate at which interest is to be paid or credited on sums standing to the credit of trustee savings banks in the Fund for the Banks for Savings;


(b) amending in any other respect the law relating to trustee savings banks.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I am sorry to delay the House, but I wonder whether the Financial Secretary can elucidate one point in the Explanatory Memorandum. Page ii says:
Clause 9 provides for the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in charge on that Fund attributable to the Bill. Such an increase might arise (under section 36 of the Act of 1954) as a result of the increase in the maximum rate of interest payable to banks on deposits in the Ordinary Departments. It is not possible to estimate the effect of this provision on the Consolidated Fund, but it is not thought likely that it will in practice result in an increased charge.
I am not entirely clear what is the relationship between this statement and the increase in the rate of increase provided for under Clause 1, which would appear to involve an extra charge and have a financial effect for the Government, because this is a payment from the Government to cover the expenses of the Trustee Savings Banks. It might be to the advantage of the House if we could be told why the financial effect Clause of the Bill gives the impression that there is no extra charge, whereas the body of the Bill apparently implies that there will be.

8.59 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I will try to help the hon. Member. No extra charge is likely to be incurred. This is a rather abstruse point, but the Exchequer is not likely to be impoverished. I do not know whether the hon. Member wants the matter dealt with in detail at this point, but if he does, I shall be happy to do so. It follows that provision of the Bill may affect the interest accrued from securities in the Fund for the banks for savings or any of the items affecting the interest paid and credited to the trustee savings banks and the like, which we have discussed in the Bill. This may affect either the amount of any surplus to the Exchequer or any deficiency which has to be met by the Exchequer. It is not expected that there will be any deficiency chargeable on the Consolidated Fund in the foreseeable future.
A charge could arise if this rate of interest were such that the National Debt

Commissioners, in the Fund for the Banks for Savings, had to invest at a lower rate than the £3 13s. 6d. which they were paying to the banks. If the rate were to drop so that, when the ordinary department deposited the money with the National Debt Commissioners in the Fund for the Banks for Savings, that would automatically create a liability of up to £3 13. 6d. per cent.—assuming that the Debt Commissioners were paying that rate and were unhappily unable to achieve a better rate—there would be a charge to the Exchequer because the Debt Commissioners would lose on the transaction. Happily or unhappily, according to one's viewpoint, the prospect is not immediate of their incurring any such loss, so the hon. Gentleman's point is dealt with at any rate for the foreseeable future.

Question put and agreed to.

PRIVILEGES

Committee of Privileges to consist of Fifteen Members:

Mr. Nigel Birch, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Richard Crossman, Mr. Ness Edwards, Mr. James Griffiths, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Edward Heath, Sir Elwyn Jones, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Sandys, Mr. Shinwell, Mr. G. R. Strauss, Mr. Turton, and Mr. Woodburn:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Six to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Varley.]

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Select Committee appointed to examine the reports laid before this House by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and matters in connection therewith:

Mr. Antony Buck, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. George Lawson, Mr. Kenneth Lomas, Mr. Alexander Lyon, Mrs. Margaret McKay, Sir Hugh MunroLucas-Tooth, Mr. Arthur Probert, Dame Irene Ward, Dr. Winstanley, and Mr. Victor Yates:

Power to send for persons, papers and records; and to report from time to time:

Five to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Varley.]

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Select Committee appointed to consider Science and Technology and to report thereon from time to time:

Mr. Tam Dalyell, Dr. Ernest Davies, Mr. David Ginsburg, Mr. Stephen Hastings, Mr. Robert L. Howarth, Sir Harry Legge-Bourke, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Eric Moonman, Mr. Airey Neave, Sir Ian Orr-Ewing, Dr. David Owen, Mr. Arthur Palmer, Mr. Brian Parkyn and Mr. David Price:

Power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order, and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time:

Four to be the Quorum:

Power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:

Every such Sub-Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report to the Committee from time to time, and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order:

Three to be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee:

Power to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Committee:

During the present Session power to appoint persons with technical or scientific knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Varley.]

Orders of the Day — G.E.C. AND A.E.I. (MERGER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Varley.]

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising what I believe to be one of the most important political issues this year. It is a tragedy that we have to debate it on the Adjournment, but we nevertheless recognise its importance. The G.E.C.-A.E.I. take-over bid has been the biggest since I.C.I. offered £200 million for Courtauld, and, because of the chain reaction, the present G.E.C.-A.E.I. merger may well make even that operation look like a penny bank operation. The chain reaction to which I refer includes not only A.E.I. and G.E.C. but also Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd., which is bound to be part of the whole developing process, English Electric, and Parsons, who are concerned with the manufacture of heavy electrical engineering. Similarly, the C.E.G.B. may come into this and possibly, even the company which was proposed in the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. That may also be a part of the emerging pattern which we shall see in British industry. For, taking the whole pattern, there is a profound and complex development taking place on the British industrial scene, and nothing that we say should underestimate the importance of that development.
I support entirely the rationalisation process now taking place. Because of that, and because I look upon this merger as a part of the process of rationalisation in industry, I welcome it. I also want to support the Ministry of Technology and the Minister of Technology, particularly in the remarks which he made today. I entirely support the comment which he made on the whole process of rationalisation and technological advance as it relates to our economic position. I also support—and possibly this is the most important—the comment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when winding up the debate last night, when he referred to the potentially sinister group now known as the Industrial Policy Group led by Sir Paul Chambers. I want to deal with


that in relation to this merger, because it is an extremely important and significant development.
Perhaps I may, however, set the scene as it concerns the Labour Party and the British Socialist Movement. It is true that constitutionally the Labour Party are committed in the long term to the creation of a classless society. But, while we state that as a long-term aim, we also recognise that there will be a fairly long transitional period and that during that transitional period the whole future development of our economy will depend upon the situation known as a mixed economy. Within that, because of the development and the extension of public enterprise, we see the situation as a contest between public and private monopoly—and that is a very important aspect of the whole of this political development.
In a contest of that kind, if we see it as a struggle between private and public monopoly, the whole question of the managerial society emerges. A great deal has been written about the managerial revolution, particularly as it applies to the emergent British society—a society partially created by Labour Party policies. What we mean by a managerial society is that this is a society governed in the main by professional managers—managers who are not accountable to the public, to Parliament, to the shareholders or to the employees. They are a completely detached professional class emerging in this kind of managerial society. One of the important features of modern development is the fact that shareholders are represented by institutions and that the major developments in industrial complexes in this society are mainly controlled by institutional shareholders. The institutional shareholders are managed by professionals and we see emerging in British society a new managerial phase, which is represented in this way and which offers tremendous power to those who control these institutional shares.
In this merger of G.E.C. and A.E.I., we have seen the faceless men—the faceless managers, as it were—of this society coming together to take a decision. We have seen their power assembled in this way, and we have seen the small number of people who are able to take a decision of this kind. It is not unrealistic to say that, in this sort of society—transitory

though it may be—we have professional managers controlling institutional shareholdings and a powerful force in this great industrial complex.
If these professional managers can come together in this way, under whatever banner they may use, they are constituting a tremendous force in our society. This is something which is happening today, and it is taking place in the context of a managerial society. We see emerging from this struggle between public and private monopoly a further struggle; that is, a contest between those who represent managerial democracy—which is the Labour Party's aim during this period—and those who represent a potential managerial dictatorship, something of which is showing signs of emerging under the leadership of such groups as the Paul Chambers Industrial Policy Group. This concerns us most.
We recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his statement last night, could not spell out in detail to whom he was referring. It is possible, however, for some of us on the back benches to say so, without committing other people. We should, therefore, during this debate have a look at the implications of what the Chancellor was saying and tell the country what may have been in his mind or to what he was referring.
In considering this question of a managerial democracy or a managerial dictatorship, it is relevant that Parliament should be concerned about people coming together—particularly those people who have this enormous institutional power, power given to them because of the impersonal process of shareholding collectivisation—which is what is happening in the G.E.C.-A.E.I. merger.
Not only are these sort of things potentially sinister. They are also potentially managerial dictators. In this context, consider the question of accountability. There is no accountability in this House for the publicly-owned industries. The nationalised industries are not accountable here. We see emerging a process in which these other managerial groups are not accountable. They are something beyond the control of this House.
I wish to consider some other aspects of the G.E.C.-A.E.I. affair. About £160 million was offered by G.E.C. for A.E.I.


It is worth noting that, in this managerial revolution, this operation has cost about £¾ million. The circularising of shareholders cost £9,000 and acres of Press space was taken to influence shareholders one way or the other. The total Press space to ken by A.E.I. has been larger than the total amount taken by the Labour Party during the last General Election—taken on that occasion for an electorate of about 36 million people and not, as in this case, for an electorate of about 60,000 people. One can, therefore, deduce that enormous monetary pressures and power are beginning to come together to work for the creation of this new form of society.
There are some 140,000 shareholders—but who are they? I have tried to find out. I know of one or two but, apart from them, we have no great knowledge. I therefore asked the Board of Trade and our own research department who the first 15 institutional shareholders were on both sides. I was told that the information could not be supplied as it would take at least 14 man hours and £350 to provide it. I asked the Board of Trade because I thought that it would make inquiries in connection with the Monopolies Commission. We now know that the Minister concerned instructed the Monopolies Commission not to investigate the merger, so the information was not available from that source.
We therefore have no clear information on that point but, being a suspicious sort of character, I felt that those shareholders were more or less the same people; that when the institutional shareholders of G.E.C. went along to the A.E.I. to find out how the offer was going it, was merely a question of their swapping from one side of the road to the other, or changing hats. But we are not able to find out with certainty because of the enormous cost involved.
The Times said that a group of shareholders, some nine men, controlled 46 per cent. of the shares. The Board of Trade said that there is no shareholding of more than 5 per cent. and that most of the institutional shareholdings were far less than 3 per cent. The evidence seems to point that way, but we have this lack of information about who the shareholders are.
There are those who say that the industrial revolution should be a process of

workers becoming shareholders in the companies in which they are employed; that that would give them democratic control. This merger has proved what utter nonsense that is—

Mr. Reginald Eyre: Since the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation sponsored the actual take-over operation, did the hon. Member ask whether it knew the share ownership?

Mr. Atkinson: It had no idea whatsoever—in fact, it did not look—whether the shareholders were the Church Commissioners, the Prudential, the Britannic, the Royal London, or any of the other 14 insurance companies who have money in A.E.I. The I.R.C. did not come into it, so it was not able to tell us. It was concerned with the overall pattern that would emerge in British industry as the result of the operation.
But let us get on to the bonanza of all this, because there are important comparisons to make. We find that anyone holding A.E.I. shares worth £100 during the previous 12 months now has £185 as a result of the takeover. In the rationalisation or modernisation of the industry, A.E.I. shareholders are now better off by some 85 per cent. It may be good to grease the slides to encourage these people to rationalise the industry—because we agree that it is necessary to have a modern industry—but an 85 per cent. gain to those shareholders to encourage them voluntarily to undertake this amalgamation or take-over must be compared with the present policy of offering the railway-men, the dockers, the engineers and other workers 3 per cent. if they will rationalise their industries. We are talking in quite a different language in the context of this new emergent managerial society when we discuss how much people are to get to rationalise their own industry, to change jobs, to be flexible, and so on—85 per cent. for shareholders; 3 per cent. for workers.
I want now to mention briefly some of the effects of the merger on this industry. First, I want to refer to the question of redundancy. It is interesting to note that A.E.I. said that if the merger did not go through it was willing to ask Lord Beeching to be managing director or to take a prominent part on the board.


Lord Beeching is a notorious professional manager of industry, but he is a butcher by nature in terms of industrial return. He has been used in various places as a chopper. One assumes from this announcement that A.E.I. felt that it was carrying too much fat and wanted to get rid of it and that employing Lord Beeching would reduce the number of employees, cut down the firm and reduce its capacity.
But Mr. Weinstock, the Managing Director of G.E.C., has a reputation built up on the axing of employees and the streamlining of the whole process. If we put these two factors together, one can assume that A.E.I. was far too large, that many employees did not know what to do with themselves and that here was the obvious remedy—Mr. Weinstock or Lord Beeching. Whichever it was, the axe would fall. That is what we are concerned about in thinking in terms of organisations of this size.
There are many questions as to what is to happen with a potential 6 per cent. growth rate in the economy. Here we had one of the largest companies, a leader in our exporting, saying that it had too much capacity and wanted to reduce and streamline. This may be the millenium for the shareholders, but it is not in accord with the economic needs of the country when now we need a much more modernised and increased capacity in this kind of manufacture. Therefore, we have some pertinent things to say about the merger and how it is likely to work out.
First, comparative costs. As a result of the merger, it would seem, judging by my own researches and comments made by others, and allowing for further mergers to take place, which will undoubtedly happen, that unit costs within the new group are likely to come down. That is good and to be welcomed. It is something that the economy needs. As a result, we are likely to see wages and salaries go up because we can compare what is happening in G.E.C. with the situation as we knew it at A.E.I., pre, Weinstock or pre-Beeching.
If the G.E.C. pattern is followed through, whereas at the moment A.E.I. wages and salaries account for about 33 per cent. of every £ of income, raw materials about 41 per cent. and operational costs and profits a further 26 per cent.,

we are likely to see, as a result of the merger, a significant shift of these figures, and we welcome that because, as we have argued on the whole of the wages issue, once industry modernises and becomes dynamic and new machinery is brought in to give much more horse power to the workers, wages can go up while unit costs can come down.
Now, apprentice training. In this House and in our political movement are many people who have been trained industrially and politically by A.E.I., and we are grateful for that. For many years A.E.I. has had an extremely progressive apprentice training scheme, both for college apprentices, university graduates and trade apprentices. I see one or two hon. Members here who are products of A.E.I.—perhaps not very good examples but far better than others. There are also people in the other place with similar backgrounds. There are ex-A.E.I. apprentices there, but perhaps they are not very good examples. There is one among us at least who is a product of A.E.I. and the leadership of A.E.I. has nearly always been provided by A.E.I. trainees. We also have an A.E.I. director in the House and we are very sorry that he is not here this evening to tell us something about possible redundancy.
None the less, the A.E.I. is tremendously influential and has produced an enormous quality of political and trade union leadership. I hope that as a result of the merger A.E.I.'s traditions of apprentice training and its attitude towards graduates generally will not be overtaken by the views now prevailing in the G.E.C. The A.E.I. has a tremendous amount of ideas to offer industry, ideas which it has created over the years since the early days of Metropolitan Vickers. There are other sections of A.E.I. which also have had progressive apprentice schemes and I hope that we shall not see any diminution of those ideas as a result of the merger.
I end as I started: these are significant moves. This merger is likely to have a tremendous impact on the British economy. It is not something which can be seen in isolation; it is the start of a tremendous change. Following on what was said by the Chancellor yesterday, there are important political lessons to be gained. I think that the Chancellor was absolutely correct to sound the warning


about what was happening. I hope that I have given some explanation of how we see the mergers and why these forces are there, recognising that if this kind of society has to choose between a managerial democracy or a managerial dictatorship, then the House will take note of what is happening and will beware of the possibilities and the dangers inherent in that situation.
We are therefore grateful to the Chancellor for having mentioned it, but let us nevertheless say to these managers in society that we are conscious of the development and of the rôle that they are playing. I hope that the House will conclude that there is an overwhelming demand for accountability by these people if our democracy is to survive.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: At the moment I propose to call only those hon. Members who wish to speak on this topic.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) on the manner in which he has opened the debate. The matter which we are discussing is an industrial event of profound and enduring importance. My hon. Friend referred to the clash between public and private monopoly and I should like briefly to refer to both.
Many of the problems of the nationalised industries are the problems of size and some of the problems of industrial relations are the same whether an industry is in public or private ownership. But with the growing size of industrial units in the private sector, I commend to them the example of the nationalised concerns in the field of industrial relations.
In putting through the legislation which nationalised electricity, gas, coal and other basic industries, the House instructed those whose job it was to manage these industries to institutionalise their respect for working people. In many of these enterprises, industrial relations are as advanced as they are anywhere in Europe or, indeed, in the world. Joint consultation in many nationalised industries as well as procedures for the

negotiation of wages and salaries and conditions of employment are extremely detailed and meet the legitimate interests of both employees and trade unions.
With a measure of this kind it is vital for those who will be managing an industrial giant to study what has been done in industrial relations in the nationalised industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham referred to apprentice training. He was also concerned about the problem of redundancy. I know that his background is that of a person who has worked in A.E.I. My interest is not that of a shareholder but that of a Member of Parliament who represents many thousands of people who have been employed by A.E.I. for the whole of their working lives.
It will do no harm for this House to emphasise its concern for the welfare of those who will work in the new undertaking. This should be a matter of the first importance. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, who is to reply to this debate, has worked for a large private industrial undertaking. I hope that he will agree with me that the welfare of those who work in large organisations must be the first concern of any manager.
Many of us who have worked for the largest organisations have frequently heard complaints about their soullessness. Size is a very severe problem indeed. The problems of communication between employer and employee are far more important in the large organisation than in the small. It is something of a scandal that, in a debate of this kind, not one hon. Member representative of either the Conservative or the Liberal Party is present.
The only Members present are my hon. Friends who are deeply concerned about the future welfare of those who work by hand and by brain in the organisations which have now merged. Many of my constituents have already expressed their anxiety about the future, and I hope that my hon. Friend will emphasise his concern for the security of the jobs of the people we represent, and for their future prospects. I hope it will also be recognised that good industrial relations are nowhere more important than they are in the large organisations, whether private or public.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) for raising the question of the G.E.C.—A.E.I. merger, which is a matter of great public interest. This is one of the largest industrial complexes in Britain, representing a large section of our manufacturing industry, in heavy engineering, electrical development, turbines and many other facets of engineering, including nuclear development. This is a combine representing not only these sections of British industry, but also large sections of British workers.
I should like my hon. Friend to explain why he felt that the I.R.C. should not be directly involved in this take-aver. Why are large sections of industry not accountable to the Government publicly or to Parliament? Here was a takeover which involved tens of thousands of £s—indeed millions of £s in relation to the benefits gained by the shareholders. No prices and incomes policy operated for them. The shares went up, and it is estimated in some quarters that as much as £35 million was gained at the time of the takeover. This is an extremely serious point.
The other interesting thing is that, while there were many thousands of small shareholders, the people who played the largest part were the insurance companies and the Church of England which was proved to be a large block shareholder in this industrial complex. We saw an industrial battle taking place at a time of economic crisis, when we wanted industrial efficiency and increased output. It took place to resolve the matter in the interests not of the economy but basically of the profit motive. We must ask ourselves: can that be the sole criterion in one of the major manufacturing industries of this country? That is a very pertinent question.
As a result of the takeover, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Arnold Weinstock is now in control of this huge industrial complex. To whom is he accountable? As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) said, it is strange that no hon. Member opposite should be present for a debate such as this which is taking place earlyish in the evening. We on this side of the House are showing a

public interest in and drawing public attention to this matter.
Like the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, many thousands of my constituents work at one of the giant A.E.I. plants in the Trafford Park area. I know that they recognise the need for industrial output and industrial efficiency, and to produce the goods which this nation needs. They are not talking about it; they are producing the wealth which this country so desperately requires. They are concerned whether when Mr. Weinstock talks about removing some of the fat, that means removing their jobs. Does this slimming down mean that their employment will be in jeopardy? They, and not just the shareholders, are entitled to be consulted and told about developments which may affect their livelihoods. These people create the industrial wealth of our society. We need efficient management and planning, but when the pinnacle is the profit motive rather than the good of the nation innocent people sometimes suffer.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is involved in a very difficult job concerned not with an expanding industry but with a contracting industry, namely, coal. My hon. Friends on this side of the House have shown great concern about this matter. Heart searching and discussion are going on. My hon. Friends are, however, able directly to discuss the matter with the Minister concerned, because it is a public industry and because account can be given and taken of what the slimming process can bring about. This is an important lesson to be learned. That is where the problems of the A.E.I. workers arise.
A number of my hon. Friends wish to speak and I shall take only a minute or two more. The points which my hon. Friend has raised about this take-over—the problems of industrial management, the industrial autocracy of tomorrow which has been created and its accountability to society, where Parliament comes into this and where a Labour Government comes into the question of planning of industry and of unemployment—are the issues which must be discussed and debated in the House of Commons. I am more than grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham for raising this matter. I hope


that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary at the Department of Economic Affairs can give assurances on the questions which we have asked, because this is not the end of the road. It is obviously only the beginning in industrial take-overs and expansions. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall watch these developments keenly.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Gregory: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) for introducing this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham referred to the whole range of issues which the merger has brought to light. We are concerned with not simply one aspect of industry, but the entire broad scale of a fundamental and basic economy.
Bearing in mind the debates that we have had this week on fundamental questions of the economy, it is appalling that there is nobody on the benches opposite to contribute tonight on an aspect of industry which involves a whole range of fundamental economic questions.
It was mentioned in the Financial Times, for example, that there is a full range of undertaking between A.E.I. and G.E.C. in basic technological industries which not only shape the rôle of other industries, but shape the policies of large nationalised undertakings. There is, for example, the whole field of telephone equipment, in which A.E.I. and G.E.C. are market leaders. There is their rôle in switchgear and transformers, on which statements have been made by the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board about the kind of industrial contribution which is made on this front. They are also leaders in process control, defence equipment, domestic appliances and consumer electronics.
If we are to discuss an industry with a vast effect not only on power and electrical industry itself, but on a wide range of modern communications and industrial systems, we should ask whether this was a calculated move. Was it a basic contribution to the economy of the country? We find that, staggeringly enough, it was not. Was this a calculated move by those who control this

vast empire of industrial interests? When The Times on Friday, 29th September, asked through their correspondent, Mr. Philip Jacobson, of Sir Charles Wheeler, the Chairman of A.E.I., what the nature of the bid was, he said,
This was pretty much of a surprise.
He said he had had a frantic lunchtime telephoning around to get his board together, and they finally sat down at 4 p.m. We here do not know, although we are dealing with a vast industry, of any calculated approach to the rôle of A.E.I. in relation to G.E.C. and precisely what their contribution will be as a combined force.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham raised the question of size and efficiency. Opinion on this would seem to be rather divided.
Since the original move on a merger between A.E.I. and G.E.C. was taken we learn through The Times from Sir Charles Wheeler that it was not so much a question of realising good management in the national interest but that, quite clearly, the concern was something apart from the national interest at that stage. The concern was purely and simply to weld together these vast financial interests, rather than concern about the kind of industrial contribution which could be made by the combine to the affairs of the country, and making the industry accountable to the nation.
On the question of size, Sir Stanley Brown, Chairman of the C.E.G.B., has said already that in the transformer industry he would like to see four companies operating in the supply of transformers and not six. We could argue just here the question of efficiency. If a reduction in the size of the industry would help towards greater efficiency, then the industrial leaders of that particular section of the industry now being combined did not realise before 29th September that this would be the case. The Times on this point said, about two or three manufacturers dropping out of this field, that the problem in the industry is that it is still far more overcrowded than it is in the rest of the world, except in Italy, where chaos still reigns with two or three firms and not the four which Britain would be left with. So here it would seem that the


consideration was not the efficient running of industry through any firms dropping out, but that the concern was to accommodate the financial interests of the companies concerned.
My hon. Friend mentioned, in passing, the comparison between this and what happened with the I.C.I.-Courtaulds takeover bid. That failed. What we saw on that occasion was a large chemical combine trying to impose its policy on the textile industry, and to determine the shape of the textile industry. Again, the failing was not because this was adjudged by the country at large neither as a move for efficiency nor one which would give the industry a magnitude to make both the chemical and textile industries competitive. In both industries we are still struggling to realise a competent and efficient way of operating, with low prices, and a consumer rôle which would accommodate British labour efficiently and intelligently. That was a struggle where I.C.I. failed in the bid. I.C.I. was the bigger operator. I would say that it fortunately failed, because that allowed a company in the shape of Courtaulds to assume a rôle within the British textile industry to carry out an efficient overhaul of the industry and provide people with basic opportunity for work. But we did not get that from good leadership. This was a failure on the part of one big company to combine.

Mr. Speaker: In this debate the hon. Member may range fairly wide, but not too widely.

Mr. Gregory: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will come back to the point whether this is in itself a good move in the interests of British industry.
Having had this merger imposed upon us, the challenge is how we can move on with a new organisation to realise both efficiency and unit sizes which can do the job. We know that there was an argument both inside and outside the Science and Technology Committee for standardisation of equipment for the supply of power through the C.E.G.B. and to sell nuclear reactors abroad at competitive prices. We never doubted our efficiency, but G.E.C. and A.E.I.—A.E.I. directly

as part of a consortium—could play a part.
The challenge to both A.E.I. and G.E.C. is how they can contribute efficiently to the policy of standardisation to bring down product costs in a domestic and world market. On this score, we look forward to the kind of rôle that A.E.I. can play, probably on a revised consortia basis, in the struggle to sell nuclear reactors abroad and bring down the cost of electricity at home.
The point remains that a marriage between two companies in this manner is not of itself a calculated approach to deal with the problems of British industry, particularly those of a fundamental electrical power industry, in tackling a job of that sort. We are wide of the mark.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will try to tell us precisely what his Ministry hopes to do, not simply waiting for things like this to happen but meeting them halfway and ensuring that, whether it be in the development of telephone systems or in shaping the British power industry to sell reactors abroad, with the participation of the General Electric Company and A.E.I. as a combined force in future, we are not left with a situation where it surprises the chairman that this kind of thing is to happen.
Instead, we should anticipate the needs of a productive industry which can go out and challenge the world, and bear in mind many of the points which have been stressed by my hon. Friends. Can we have an assurance from my hon. Friend on behalf of his Department that, in future, we shall have a blueprint for British industry which is not related to the snap take-over, but is a calculated approach to make the industry durable and, furthermore, a challenge to the world in terms of what it produces in the interests of the country.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. John Ryan: Several speakers have paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) for introducing this important debate on the Adjournment. I repeat that tribute, and I do not think that it grows stale by repetition. In raising this matter, he has done a real service to the House.
I want to comment on what I consider to be Lt narrow but important issue. It is the rôle of the I.R.C. in this and future mergers in the British industrial process. I do not take the view that the present pattern of industry should be static or is sacrosanct. I recognise that mergers will take place. However, I want to consider the criteria by which they take place, the way in which they take place, and the influence which the I.R.C. and other Government agencies have on the shaping of those mergers.
My hon. Friends have paid tribute to A.E.I., its training policies and its management policies. I have no constituency interest in this matter, but I would ask my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State if he would care to consider the rôle of the I.R.C. and the way in which it tried to impose its concept of the public and industrial benefit upon this merger.
In any consideration of a market economy, there are great difficulties for efficient firms in the market place. This is a firm which has a dividend policy which is less than generous to its shareholders, and which puts aside a larger proportion than normal for research and development and lays down capital for the future. Such a firm can put itself in a difficult and vulnerable position in the market for a takeover.
I know that the prices of shares reflect future income and by and large on average a balance will be struck. Nevertheless, we have seen situations where firms, which have been more progressive and which have put down higher capital investment and looked more to the future, have been in serious danger of a takeover because at any point in time the owners of the firm were unable to control the private shareholders who wanted a quick killing. In this situation we have some shares rising by 85 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said. It is a curious comment, at a time when the country is facing serious economic problems and when there is a rigidly enforced prices and incomes policy, that people can take an 85 per cent. profit. I know that my hon. Friend will refer to Capital Gains Tax and so on and so forth, but there is a substantial profit to be made which stands in stark contrast to the electricity supply workers and other low-paid workers who have had

wage increases of only a few shillings a week held up for 15 months because of the Government's policy. This is a responsibility that the Government cannot shirk.
I know that this is getting wide of the mark in this situation, but I would like my hon. Friend to comment on the way in which this merger took place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said that it would be difficult to find out exactly the ownership of the firms concerned. This is a situation where the ownership was diffuse and where large and amorphous corporations held large blocks of shares for purely investment purposes. One cannot argue that insurance companies are necessarily enthusiastic about which particular company or industry they have their holdings in. They are enthusiastic about the returns. The holdings and investment policy which they pursue at any point in time is purely financial criteria and not on productive or industrial criteria.
If one of these partners had a better record of research and development, including distributing less dividends, its shares may be an unattractive part of the portfolio of the insurance company holding them and a prospect of an 85 per cent. increase may not be an unattractive consideration. I would like my hon. Friend to comment on this aspect when he replies.
Another thing which struck me about this merger was the amount of Press advertising which took place. We know that the actual shareholders of both companies probably add up to no more than 140,000 individuals. It seems curious in that situation that one should see this vast expenditure on advertising when they were locked in the struggle. It seems unjustifiable, if one accepts the present situation, that mergers should be carried out on entirely capitalist criteria.
One could hardly justify some of the advertising which has taken place. It seems legitimate to point to one's record of achievement in the past, and to point to the amount of money the firm has put by for the future for capitalisation and to provide for the management of the firm, but some of these advertisements merely said, "A.E.I. says No", right down a full page in certain newspapers. This does not seem to be an intelligent


or convincing approach. It seems unjustified that this kind of money should be spent at a time of austerity throughout the country when one is only speaking of 140,000 or 150,000 people.
One also knows the kind of editorial mention and prominence that is given to the state of a particular argument is sometimes based on the volume of advertising spent on behalf of the combatants. In this case the editorial mentioned was about equal with the advertising. That is a way of keeping the battle alive. Most people expected G.E.C. to get A.E.I. quicker than it did.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend would comment on the position of the I.R.C. in future. When it sees things like this, will it be able to exercise some control over the mergers and how much expenditure takes place? At the start of such a process will it find out who the shareholders are, why they are shareholders, for how long they have been shareholders, and whether they are large companies with holdings in competitors and so forth? Will it try to add a bit more dignity and intelligent structural alteration to the merger? If it does not, and if we again see the undignified squabble, which takes place at great cost to the consumer and the public in terms of the money spent on the merger, then it will cheapen the public life of the country. It would be a great disappointment if the I.R.C. were prepared to see that happen again.

Mr. Stan Newens: I am glad that this matter has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), and—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Mr. Newens: I am sure that many workers in A.E.I. and G.E.C. will be grateful for what my hon. Friend has done. It seems to me that this take-over illustrates very well the relationship which prevails in modern society between the development of the economy and politics. If this had been the take-over of a firm or an industry by a public authority

such as the steel industry, we should have had waves of protests, last ditch speeches, and all-night sessions, but until the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), and the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) walked in to the Chamber, one might have thought that an epidemic had hit the other side of the House, judging from the emptiness of those benches.
The takeover of a private concern by another private concern is accepted virtually without a word, except on the Stock Exchange, where it produces a tidal wave. It is very important that we should note how this must be interpreted. We must take it to mean that the interests of consumers and the interests of the workers are regarded in this society, certainly by hon. Gentlemen opposite, as completely subordinate to the interests of shareholders. I think that all hon. Members will agree that rationalisation is very desirable, but we have to ask ourselves in whose interests it is desirable? I think that we on this side of the House have shown by our presence here this evening that we believe that the workers and consumers should at least be of some account.
I have a denfinite constituency interest in this, because I represent Harlow New Town, where there is an important A.E.I. factory, an establishment at which redundancy has not been unknown in the past. It is well known that a policy of rationalisation will mean closures, the removal of work from one locality to another, and redundancies, possibly both in G.E.C. and A.E.I. It is important to remember that this is something which concerns not merely shop floor workers, but also scientists and technicians who have spent many years acquiring their qualifications.
If, for example, as a result of this merger A.E.I. establishments were shut down either in total or in part in Harlow, it would mean a vast waste of resources, and not only resources in private hands but much that is in public hands, because Harlow New Town has been built with public money and houses have been provided for workers who have come to the town specifically to work in industries such as those provided by A.E.I. Vast amounts of capital have been expended on recruiting the work force for factories such as that in Harlow and


on recruiting teams of technicians and scientists to work there. The loss of public money involved when a shutdown occurs may be concealed to some extent from the public by rises in prices which will cover the losses, but they are nevertheless real losses of our national resources, and this is something which we should not underestimate.
If the A.E.I. establishment in my constituency were subjected to considerable redundancy, it would pose a serious problem in Harlow, a new town which was built with the objective of providing employment for workers who severed their connections with their own areas so that they could come to work here.
Whether or not this sort of redundancy takes place, the takeover bid has created in the minds of the workers a fear of redundancy which is extremely damaging for the prospects of the industry. I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some assurances on this issue. I have no doubt that Mr. Weinstock is a very able man, but we must remember that his primary concern is not with the workers or consumers but with the shareholders. This is a very sad commentary on society. It is a sad fact that rationalisation should take place virtually only by consent of those who stand to gain from increases in profits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) pointed out, the prices and incomes policy, and norms for increases in incomes, do not apply in this case.
I represent hundreds of people who tore up their roots to come to Harlow New Town. No threat has been voiced, and I do not wish to create a scare, but the Government have a responsibility to ensure that wherever closures or redundancies occur, whether in my constituency or in any other, alternative work will be provided so that we do not idly anticipate a work force which has been built up at considerable public expense.
It seems to me that as the Government gave support for this merger they have a responsibility not to stand by if closures and redundancies occur. I am all for rationalisation, but it should be carried out in the public interest and not in the interests of a minority of people. Full consideration should be given to the interests of the consumers and the

workers. Sooner or later we must recognise that industrial giants and monopolies should be brought into public ownership where they will be fully responsible to the public instead of to the present minority of shareholders and those who claim to represent their interests.
I recognise that this would be Socialism—

Mr. Speaker: It would also be out of order in this debate.

Mr. Newens: The question of Socialism for A.E.I. and G.E.C. might well be mentioned in this debate, in order to point out that there is an alternative to what we have seen taking place during the past few weeks.
I realise that not only is there opposition to this among hon. Members opposite but that some hon. Members on this side of the House are also lukewarm. Nonetheless, I hope that my hon. Friend will give some assurances this evening which will not only deal with the points that have been raised but also with the interests of and fears expressed by the workers in A.E.I. and G.E.C.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, and had not indeed realised that a debate would develop at all; but I should like to deal with three points which have been raised. The first was the very good point of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Ryan) about Press advertising. The Press advertising in connection with this merger was extremely unedifying, and it would do the Press and all of us good if we examined which company advertised in which papers and why. The hon. Member did well to raise that point.
The second aspect was the mention of nominee holdings—of shareholders in the two companies being unidentifiable because their shares were in the names of nominees. I entirely deplore this. It should be manifest to all who the shareholders are, and if any measures are brought in to make it possible to see through nominee holdings, I will support them.
The third point was whether putting these two companies together is in the interests of their workers, and I believe,
emphatically, that it is. It is sad that these two companies should lose their separate identities, but we must recognise that the world scale of industry is far larger than that in this country, that a single American company may have a turnover larger than the expenditure of the British Government.
Regrettably, if we are to compete in the world, we have to arrange our industry in much larger units. If we do not, we cannot compete and there will be no jobs for those in this industry. I am sure that, in the long run, this merger, which has the support of the Government, will undoubtedly be in the interests of all those, management and workers, concerned with both firms.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: rose

10.12 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Edmund Dell): I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I have been asked so many questions that, unless I reply now, I will not be able to cover them.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) who has raised some important questions about the implications of G.E.C.'s successful bid for A.E.I. I know that my hon. Friend is one of a powerful phalanx of ex-A.E.I. Members in the House and I was moved by his expressions of loyalty to his old company.
He spoke about the managerial society. There are many characteristics of our company legislation which require fundamental reconsideration, and this must include all those long-debated questions relating to industrial democracy. I am sure that the Labour Party and the Government must give further thought to these matters, and particularly to the important question of public accountability of these large companies.
We all want a stronger and more competitive economy, with a rate of economic growth permitting a still higher standard of living and further improvement in social conditions. If we are to succeed, we must make full and efficient use of our resources and British industry must compete still more effectively and vigorously in world markets. It is to this

end that the Government's industrial policies are directed, and we shall not realise our aims unless we take full account of the limitations of the industrial structure which has evolved here.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend emphasised the importance of industrial rationalisation, which is a view increasingly shared by businessmen and economists. Of course performance ultimately depends on the quality of management and employees, but the opportunities open to them depend to a great extent on the resources at their disposal. There are, for instance, in most sectors of industry, many things which larger firms can do by way of marketing, research and development and the installation of the very latest equipment which are just not within the capabilities of small firms, particularly if they have to compete with much larger concerns overseas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Ryan) questioned that to some extent, but I assure him that the vast majority of industrial research and development in this country, and indeed in all industrialised countries, is done by large firms. That is why the Government have given such a high priority to industrial reorganisation, because it is fundamental in improving the performance of our industry.
I am not one of those who equate bigness with efficiency and considers small firms obsolescent. Small firms are often highly efficient and enterprising. They may sometimes be able to react more quickly to market opportunities. They have sometimes been world leaders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) said, they may sometimes be more comfortable places in which to work, with more intimate relations between management and labour. But smallness can also be a handicap, for example in competing in the world market, and it is in the export industries that the structure of British industry appears most defective as compared, for example, with German industry.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), who made his speech and then immediately left the Chamber, made a comparison with the United States. I often feel that a more enlightening comparison


is that with Germany another industrial country in Europe. Germany's competitive strength has undoubtedly been helped by the fact that in the major export trades German companies are much larger than British companies, especially if one leaves aside the chemical industry; and that German plants supplying the export market are much larger and appear to be much more productive than, on average, are British plants supplying the export market, and this, again, is even more true if chemicals are excluded.
Now that international trade is freer than before, more and more markets are becoming international in scope. This and the increasing pace of technological development weighs the scale more and more in favour of large firms capable of research and development, production and marketing on a truly international scale. This applies particularly to the electrical engineering industry, the subject of the debate tonight.
It was for this reason—and my hon. Friends will remember the debates which took place a year ago—that the Government established the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation with financial resources of £150 million to stimulate and help forward industrial rationalisation. It has already had a very useful first year of operation examining the structural problems facing various industries, including micro-electronics and telecommunications and working in concert with many firms in a wide range of industries to hasten reorganisation. Its rôle in the G.E.C.-A.E.I. merger received a magisterial accolade in a leader in The Times. The controversies of a year ago about this institution are forgotten—or almost forgotten—and I am sure that the Corporation will play an extremely important part in making British industry more efficient and profitable in the future, particularly where schemes of rationalisation and modernisation offer good prospects of early returns in terms of increased exports.
At a time when the level of unemployment is temporarily higher than any of us would like to see, it is important to place reorganisation and rationalisation in their proper perspective. Now that the £ has been devalued, British industry has been given a tremendous opportunity to

sell more goods abroad, and rationalisation is all the more necessary if our industry is to meet this challenge in world markets and to remain in the forefront of technological progress.
A point which my hon. Friends have mentioned and which causes concern—I will refer later to one assurance given to the Government by the G.E.C.—is that rationalisation may well mean concentration and the closing down of uneconomic units, and there may be some transitional unemployment where that takes place. It would be unwise to resist that process. I entirely agree, however, that the process must take place in close consultation with the trade unions. What we want from companies is what responsible firms already give—co-operation in ensuring that the necessary redeployment is orderly and planned. What we must then do is to see that people released from jobs by rationalisation are helped by redundancy payments and retrained through industrial training schemes so that they can then make the switch, without hardship, to other jobs where their skills are needed. As production for export grows, all those skills will be very much needed, and we must make sure that they are not mistakenly hoarded in one firm when they would be put to better use in another.
In the next year, we are more likely to face shortages of skill than surpluses of skill. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) said that alternative work should be made available, and I entirely agree that there should be planning to that effect. This is as much a point for the development areas as anywhere else.
We believe that it will be beneficial to the economy if the re-grouping of manufacturing activity resulting from mergers is concentrated in the development areas, whenever this can be achieved without significant loss of efficiency. It would be incompatible, of course, with the Government's overall strategy for strengthening the structure of British industry to maintain that no rationalisation scheme should ever lead to redundancies in a development area. The Government would be very concerned, however, at rationalisation measures which led to a transfer of jobs from the development areas to the congested and more prosperous areas.
This does not, of course, mean that the existing pattern of employment must be rigidly maintained, but the Government would expect firms to take due account of the special needs of, and long-term opportunities in, the development areas when planning their rationalisation measures.
Thus, there is no conflict here between our industrial and our regional policies. The economic salvation of the development areas will come, as our regional policies recognise, from the introduction of the dynamic new industries of the future which can look forward to growing world markets in the years to come, as well as from the expansion of existing industries. It is in the best interests of all concerned—trade unionists and management alike—that the pattern of industrial activity in any area should reflect the challenge of the future and not the distant achievements of the past.
So much for the Government's general policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) suggests that this merger and process of rationalisation is entirely unplanned. In the particular case of electrical engineering, the Government accept the widely held view, shared by those within the industry, that the industry would benefit from rationalisation. The National Plan specifically mentioned this industry as one where reorganisation might lead to increased competitive efficiency, and a good deal has happened since.
Following a study organised by the Electrical Engineering E.D.C., the number of manufacturers of distribution transformers has been reduced by half, to about 20 firms and the E.D.C. is now promoting a similar review of the possibilities in the electric meter industry. Discussions are taking place between the firms which manufacture power transformers and, according to Press reports, the industry may well eventually consist of about half a dozen firms. Since 1965 there have been only three firms manufacturing turbo generators. Throughout the electrical and allied industry, a number of other mergers, in addition to the one which we are discussing tonight, have already been announced this year.
In considering the structure of the U.K. electrical engineering industry, one must

not forget the part played by the C.E.G.B. as the largest single customer. They naturally welcome any prospects for rationalisation which may lead to greater efficiency, particularly in commissioning plant on time and improved availability thereafter.
Given the fiercely competitive international environment in which the industry operates, these developments are clearly a continuing process. Seen in the world context, even the G.E.C.-A.E.I. merger will not create a unit as large as many of its principal overseas competitors. Indeed, the combined turnover of the G.E.C.-A.E.I. group will rank ninth in the world league table of electrical manufacturing companies, behind five United States, one Dutch, one German and one Japanese firm. Those who say that the efficient operation of firms of this size makes considerable demands on management must remember that many foreign companies, and indeed some British companies, have already shown that these demands can be met. I know that the I.R.C. has well in the forefront of its mind the fact that the success of grouping depends ultimately on the quality of management.
Reference has been made to the export effort of A.E.I. The electrical engineering industry is making a major contribution to the national export effort. In the first half of this year, British exports of electrical and allied goods were running at an annual rate of £418 million compared to £344 million for the whole of 1964, an increase of 21·5 per cent. This is an excellent achievement, but we should not ignore the rising trend of imports during the same period from £148 million in 1964 to an annual rate of £288 million in the first half of this year, an increase of 54 per cent. in imports, as against 21·5 per cent. in exports. Thus, during the last three years or so, the industry's overall net export position has deteriorated.
Some sectors have fared better than others. The value of exports of heavy electrical plant increased by 38 per cent. since 1963, and the net export position in the telecommunications sector has also shown a marked improvement. In other sectors, particularly electronics and domestic electrical appliances, the net export position has deteriorated over this period. Despite this industry's undoubted


export achievements in recent years, against extremely strong overseas competition, it remains true that the German electrical manufacturing industry exports 25 per cent. of its output while ours exports only 17 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge referred to the rôle of the I.R.C. As is well known, the I.R.C. gave its full support to the G.E.C. bid. The Corporation had been investigating for some time the possibilities for rationalisation in the heavy electrical plant industry and had had discussions with all the firms concerned. As was made clear in the published exchange of letters between Sir Frank Kearton and Sir Joseph Latham of A.E.I., the I.R.C. supported the G.E.C. bid because of a strong practical conviction that the large tasks of reorganisation facing the electrical manufacturing industry could be more powerfully undertaken by G.E.C.and A.E.I. jointly than by either company acting alone. The I.R.C. was impressed by the need to create a single British electrical manufacturing company which would be more in line with the size of the principal foreign companies in this competitive field.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) asked why the T.R.C. did not take part financially. G.E.C. did not need or ask for financial support. The I.R.C. made no comment on the terms of the offer; it merely made a judgment—which, I believe, was influential—that the merger was of national benefit.
The Government welcome this merger. I recognise that there may be concern about the effect on employment. The House will wish to know that the Government have already written to G.E.C. to ask it to take account of the requirements of the Government's regional policies when considering further rationalisation moves which may stem from this merger, and it has agreed to do so.
I recognise that some people may be worried about the possibility that the creation of a company of this size—it will be one of the largest in Britain—may make it unduly dominant in some sectors of the market. It is always right in respect of any large merger for the Government to consider the possibility of detriment to the public interest as well as the advantages that may accrue.
To take that attitude in no way conflicts with the Government's policy of pres sing for the reorganisation of industrial structure. The Board of Trade considered this merger most carefully in the light of its responsibilities under the 1965 Monopolies and Mergers Act and concluded, on the evidence available, that the merger did not raise such questions of potential detriment to the public interest as would justify an investigation by the Monopolies Commission. The Board was concerned about the possibility of detriment to the public interest over the supply of electric lamps, but satisfactory assurances were given by G.E.C. on this aspect.
May I say how much I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham about the importance of the merged company keeping up the A.E.I. tradition in the training of apprentices. This is certainly a most important matter, and I am sure that the merged company will pay due attention to it. I also agree with what he said about the benefits which can accrue from the merger depending on the achievement of successful industrial relations within the company, but I cannot this evening go any further in making any judgment about the detailed advantages likely to flow from G.E.C.'s acquisition of A.E.I. This merger between two great companies with interests in electrical engineering, electronics and telecommunications covers many sectors of industrial activity. The full benefits of the merger will become apparent only over a period of time when the new company has decided its policies. We believe, however, that the rationalisation following the merger will strengthen the electronics industry and is likely to be of considerable benefit to other parts of the electrical engineering industry as well.
This merger is an important step in a major British industry, and has created a company better able to match the resources of its overseas competitors.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.